Oregon State Bar Reporter
Daniel A. Bernath, Editor
Regularly publishing on the internet at www.OregonShyster.com
15532 SW 99W #101
Tigard, Oregon 97224
(503) 639 6666 ussyorktown@comcast.net

To Scott Morrill

And Dan R. Hyatt, Oregon State Bar Member

I would like to also file a complaint against Dan R. Hyatt for repeatedly lying to you during an investigation regarding his theft of US Government property. Hyatt has violated Rule 3.3 and others. As an attorney myself I must disclose these illegal and unethical acts which have occurred tribunal- the Oregon State Bar. Rule 3.3(b)

In Dan R. Hyatt’s response to you in his memo dated March 18, 2008, Hyatt states that he can steal government property and that he is immune from any discipline of the Oregon State Bar because he is an administrative law judge. Of course this is nonsense. As an extreme example of Hyatt‘s defense; Can Dan Hyatt also take out a gun and shoot a claimant because he feels claimant is unworthy and then state that even though he has committed a crime that he is immune from any discipline from the Oregon State Bar because he is an administrative law judge? (answer-no he cannot). So too here. Hyatt has committed the crime of stealing United States government property and making the Oregon State Bar culpable for possession of this very same stolen property. He has no immunity for bar discipline for not only committing this crime but for also dragging the honorable Oregon State Bar into his schemes.

Many prominent people have attempted to use the “Hyatt Defense” against their state bar’s disciplinary system. The Hyatt Defense is, “I am in federal service and therefore you have no power over me.” This defense has failed with President Richard Nixon who was disbarred by the New York Bar Association for his role in the cover-up and spying of his political opponents while he was acting as President.

Charges were brought against attorney at law and President Richard Nixon, contending that he had obstructed justice and had concealed evidence in the Watergate affair.

By a vote of 4 to 1 a five-justice New York State panel sustained the charges and found Mr. Nixon, who had practiced law in Manhattan before becoming President, guilty of violating the code. The New York State panel affirmed that the essential part of Mr. Nixon's criminal misconduct was his "obstruction of the due administration of justice, a most serious offense, but one which is rendered even more grievous by the fact that in this instance the perpetrator is an attorney and was at the time of the conduct in question the holder of the highest public office of this country and in a position of public trust." NY Times February 26, 1993
 

Other federal officials who have attempted and failed to use the “Hyatt Defense” when confronted with charges by their state’s bar association is President and attorney at law, William Jefferson Clinton. Attorney and President Clinton was ordered to pay $25,000 in fines to Arkansas state's bar officials and his Arkansas law license was suspended for five years for his criminal misdeeds while a federal official (the equivalent of disbarment as he would have to reapply for his license as any disbarred attorney would have to do). The agreement came on the condition that Whitewater prosecutors would not pursue federal (criminal) perjury charges against him. Clinton was suspended by the Supreme Court in October 2001, and, facing disbarment from that court, Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court bar in November. Wikipedia

Therefore, Hyatt’s defense that other tribunals ALSO have jurisdiction over his crimes is without merit. The Oregon State Bar has a duty to the citizens of the State of Oregon and the US Attorney and US Office of General Counsel has a different constituency just as the State Bars of New York, Arkansas and the US Supreme Court all had concurrent jurisdiction over Presidents and attorneys Nixon and Clinton as the Oregon Supreme Court and Oregon Bar has concurrent jurisdiction over Oregon State Bar member Dan R. Hyatt.

Furthermore, Dan Hyatt bolsters his flimsy defense with a lie. I therefore file this new complaint against Dan R. Hyatt for lying to the Oregon State Bar during an investigation of his crime of theft of US Government property.

Hyatt says: “Membership in a state (sic) Bar is not a requirement of Judge Hyatt’s position.” He tells the Oregon State Bar that he is an active member as a kind of favor to the Oregon State Bar but not practicing. (Hyatt then goes on to contradict himself by stating that he IS IN FACT A MEMBER and acting as an Oregon attorney as “this Region’s Disciplinary counsel.” So he is saying he is NOT practicing law but then he says that he actually IS practicing law.)

Dan Hyatt has lied to you and has done so knowing that he is lying to you. Please look at 5 USC 930.204 (attached)

The significances is two fold. Firstly, Dan R. Hyatt lied to the Oregon State Bar during an investigation of his theft of US Government property. Secondly, the United States looks to the Oregon Bar and the other bars to concurrently discipline the administrative law judges/attorneys for the United States, such as Dan R. Hyatt.

Preliminarily, Dan R. Hyatt misused his position as Administrative Law Judge and began the federal machinery to generate a copy of the US administrative agency hearing by stating or implying that he was obtaining the CD for US Government business. That was a false statement by Dan R. Hyatt to the US Government. He had recused himself from the Moody case over a year ago. He then took the US Government property and transmitted it to an Oregon State Agency thereby Dan R. Hyatt stole US Government property and by the OSB taking possession made the OSB workers culpable for possession of stolen US Government property. These facts are beyond a doubt. Your own Oregon State Bar counsel Linn Davis states this is what occurred. (Memo from Linn Davis, Oregon State Bar, May 30, 2008 “Dan Hyatt submitted the (stolen US Government) disc to the Oregon State Bar…”)

Dan Hyatt lies to you again and again in his defense of March 18, 2008. Local administrative law judge/social security attorney Dan R. Hyatt states in his defense “There occurred no violation of Rule or Regulation here.”

This of course flies in the face of reality and also is a bald faced lie, pointed out by the Chief Administrative Law Judge of the United States in his demand that the Oregon State Bar return stolen US Government property back to its own-the United States Social Security Administration. In his demand, Frank A. Cristaudo, Chief Administrative Law Judge states:

Therefore, Dan R. Hyatt lied to you during an investigation of his unlawful conduct. Clearly a crime has taken place at the most and at the least Dan R. Hyatt has violated “Agency rules, policies and procedures.

… the Privacy Act, the Social Security Act and recent United States Office of Management and Budget memoranda.”

Without a doubt, Dan Hyatt is guilty of violating Oregon criminal law and United States criminal law for his theft of US Government property.

Dan Hyatt states: “I have attached a form identical to several which Mr. Moody signed.” But Hyatt provides NO SUCH FORM signed by Mr. Moody and even if Moody did sign it Dan Hyatt attempts to deceive this tribunal when he omits the operative language, forbidding his theft and disclosure to non Social Security persons;

TO WHOM (To whom does Barry Moody limit disclosure of his name and Social Security number, etc.): The Social Security Administration and to the State agency authorized to process my case, (usually called “disability determination services”), including contract copy services, and doctors and other professionals consulted during the process.

PURPOSE (what would be the sole reasons Moody permits disclosure of his name and Social Security number) Determining my eligibility for benefits, including looking at the combined effect of any impairments that by themselves would not meet SSA’s definition of disability; and whether I can manage such benefits.

EXPIRES WHEN (for these limited purposes of determining if Moody meets SSA’s rules for disability and whether he can manage benefits, SSA does not even have the authority to do that limited disclosing after a short time period is met) This authorization is good for 12 months from the date signed.

SSA 827 Page two

Therefore, Dan R. Hyatt attempts to deceive you again by giving you a blank SSA 827 and lying to you about what it say and his information can be disclosed to anyone and lying to by implying that Moody signed such a document within the last year.

He has not signed such a document within the year before Dan Hyatt stole the CD.

Even if Moody did sign a SSA 827 it strictly limits where his information can go and that is only to those persons who can determine if he meets SSA regulations for benefits and handling of benefits.

Finally, even if Hyatt could overcome all these hurdles, he fails to address the bigger issue, he lied to the Social Security Administration to obtain Social Security property, the CD and no “authorization” by any claimant can authorize him to steal US Government property and distribute it where he pleases. Indeed, the law is quite clear, he is barred from disclosing the information on the CD and barred from stealing US Government property but has acted unlawfully in the past and continues to do so with his deceit to the Oregon Bar, now.

Dan R. Hyatt also attempts to deceive the Oregon State Bar on matters big and small as it investigates his unlawful and unethical conduct . For example, he falsely states the law to mislead the Oregon State Bar when he boldly asserts: “Bernath is abusing the qualified privilege attendant to a Bar Complaint…”

But this is clearly a deception by Dan R. Hyatt to confuse the OSB. The privilege to quote bar complaints is totally privileged in Oregon. This is obviously an attempt by Hyatt to deceive the bar during its investigation because this tenet has been handed down by the Oregon Supreme Court nearly half a century ago. Ramstead v. Morgan 219 Or 383, 347 P2d 594, 598 (1959) “We will treat as absolutely privileged any statements made” in a complaint to the Oregon State Bar, says the Oregon Supreme Court.

Finally, I have received hard evidence of an earlier complaint regarding Dan R. Hyatt. He “cooks the evidence” so that the case will come out against the claimant. He does this by disqualifying/blackballing medical professionals who might find a claimant disabled, as he does not want claimants to be found to be disabled. This is patently against the law and Dan R. Hyatt is cavalierly violating the law again and again. See HALLEX 494.1512(e) (this document provided to Oregon State Bar Reporter anonymously on or about 06.08)

It is time that you disbar Dan R. Hyatt so that he can no longer damage and destroy the thousands of people and families that he has destroyed so far with his illegal and hurtful conduct.

If you have any more questions regarding the unethical conduct of Dan R. Hyatt, please feel free to communicate with me.

Respectfully,

Daniel A. Bernath

Editor

Cc: Senator Wyden

List attached, Members of Congress and the Press