Dan R. Hyatt!~ Bar complaint~28 counts of perjury

Re: Your bar member Dan R. Hyatt-perjury before a United States District Court Magistrate

Your bar member, Dan R. Hyatt, has repeatedly committed perjury and I have been wrongfully convicted of a crime because of his scores of perjury. I enclose a copy of his sworn testimony and other documents that show his lying under oath. I also request that you take Administrative Notice of statements that Hyatt has made to your agency.

Hyatt has repeatedly committed the federal crimes of perjury. 18 USC §1621 and violated many of your State Bar rules. Therefore, he must be disbarred. OSB member Fredric N. Weinhouse OSB # 77386 was well aware of the different versions that Hyatt told and must be investigated to see if Hyatt coached, and therefore if there was any subordinated perjury.

While Hyatt should not be punished more than any citizen because of his crimes, surely he cannot be applauded by his unethical conduct. Hyatt as an alj, “occupies a high and prominent federal office, one requiring that its incumbents conduct themselves in a fitting manner.” SSA v. Manion 19 MSPR 298, 319 (1984).

Hyatyt charged with over 25 counts of lying under oathAs a high federal official, Hyatt’s over 25 perjuries before US Magistrate Judge Paypak, as Hyatt intentionally looked His Honor in the eye while doing so, is especially egregious. Hyatt knows full well how a witness must testify to be believed by a judge and misused his training and experience to lie to US Magistrate Judge Paypak over 25 times.

Dan R. Hyatt has let the US District Court down. He has let the Oregon State Bar down, he caused an innocent man to be convicted and he has betrayed his oath and has damaged Justice and the public’s deep respect for the judiciary.

But, as Hyatt had taken the oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, this statement was clearly perjury.

“Nevertheless, this case involves a very egregious abuse of ALJ authority. {The ALJ was not Hyatt} The ALJ based his decision on repeated factual distortions and outright misrepresentations.

The Appeals Council should give serious consideration to this case. It is not a “close” case, and the ALJ’s vicious rape of the claimant is unwarranted and reprehensible. No claimant should be raped by an ALJ in the manner perpetrated herein and no ALJ decision which amounts to such rape should be condoned by this agency.” (emphasis added)

The ALJ twists this around in so many different ways that it would be humorous, except that it is never humorous when an adjudicator who is charged with carrying out the mandate of the Social Security Act does so in a vindictive, spiteful, and reprehensible manner, basing his decision on factual distortions and ALJ dishonesty. For example, in accusing the claimant of making a “totally ludicrous” statement about there being no law against rape in 1986, the ALJ misstates the evidence. The claimant did not say there was no law against rape in 1986. She said that she had been raped by a supervisor in 1986. When she later was exposed on the job to sexual harassment, it caused PTSD difficulties, because of the prior rape. The claimant believed that there were no laws covering the area of the later harassment.

When accusing someone of lying, ALJ Caulfield might be more careful to adhere to the truth himself.

…laughing out loud now. In rejecting the concept that the claimant has a decent work history, the ALJ cites to evidence that she has not worked since she became disabled.

The ALJ is so caught up in his serious of misrepresentations that he cannot see the illogic of his own (ir)rationale.

The Appellate lawyer is not accusing a judge of raping his client but Hyatt attempted to destroy the appellate lawyer’s credibility because this lawyer represented a claimant where a US Magistrate repeatedly said that Hyatt was a liar. By attempting to tear down that appellate lawyer’s credibility, he attempted to somehow tear down that the US Magistrate Judge had stated repeatedly in the Pittman matter that Hyatt lied.

As such, Hyatt attempted to deceive the US District Court Magistrate in the US v. Bernath matter and did so by the use of perjury by not stating the “whole truth”, e.g. the context of the appellate lawyer’s statements.

The appeals lawyer did not accuse an ALJ of holding a woman down and penetrating her sexual organs as Hyatt wished for the US Magistrate Judge to believe. The ALJ, with his many misrepresentations and distortions had metaphorically raped his already raped client (the client who subsequently suffered PTSD from that actual rape). “No claimant should be raped by an ALJ in the manner perpetrated herein and no ALJ decision which amounts to such rape.”

Of course, if Hyatt had said the truth his statement would have been “Wilborn metaphorically said that an alj raped his client because Wilborn pled that the alj lied repeatedly in his decision and the claimant had actually been raped by an employer.” But of course, that would not have persuaded the US Magistrate Judge that Wilborn was a nut…and somehow, the US Magistrate Judge who wrote that Hyatt lied repeatedly in a separate opinion should be discredited. (Hyatt attempted to discredit the US Magistrate Judge that called the Hyatt a liar by stating that the attorney for claimant was a nut-not a convincing argument) Hyatt did this by committing perjury to bolster his own contrary testimony of other witnesses who stated that Bernath had violated no laws at the elevator.

In his brief to Magistrate Judge Steward at the time, he (Wilborn) said that- -he put a footnote in, alleging I called Ms. Pittman at home and told her that if she didn’t go out with me on a date, that I would deny her benefits.

There is no footnote in the brief in the Pittman matter that says any such thing. As such, this is another clear perjury by your bar member Dan R. Hyatt.

Hyatt was well aware of this perjury to Judge Papak when he made it. By and through counsel, when Hyatt wrote to defend himself from some other disgraceful conduct he says,

Wilborn falsely alleges in Plaintiff’s Opening Brief that Judge Hyatt “in an improper Ex Parte Contact, called plaintiff on the phone to discuss her case with her.”

Exhibit C Dan R. Hyatt letter to Oregon State Bar, by and through counsel, dated June 13, 2005, page 9, paragraph 2 and 3.

Therefore, through this perjury it is clear that either Dan R. Hyatt is totally delusional or is incapable of perceiving the world as it really exists and therefore a new trial is required and Dan R. Hyatt needs to be disbarred to protect the citizens of Oregon and Washington State from any of his future criminal acts.

I think it is important to note that I don’t write my own decisions. I have a staff of writers who write my decisions for me. The particular individual who wrote this probably got a little bit carried away.

I don’t have time to sit there and read the draft the attorney wrote for me and compare it word for word with what the record says. I read it. I make sure that it flows. I make sure that it generally states my feelings overall about the case, the conclusion is correct, that it is adequately and legally sufficient. That’s all I look for.

Dan Hyatt blows hot and cold on whether he writes or another person writes his decisions and his role in this process. But, when Hyatt changes his story about his process and habits, he has committed perjury before the US Magistrate Court.

I was a clerk, at Social Security Court and have many times corrected Dan R. Hyatt’s decisions. The decision was written by a writer, based on the instructions of Dan R. Hyatt. I saw his notes where Hyatt told the writer to deny benefits and then telling the writer which documents to emphasize and which witness to emphasize to the claimant’s detriment. Thereafter, a writer would put together a draft and place it on the Social Security computer system entitled CPMS.

I would then print out the writer’s decision and the evidence file and take the decision to Hyatt’s office all enclosed with a rubber band. Hyatt would then read every single word of the decision and would correct errors and change the words, punctuation and reasoning of the writer. This was done by him in his handwriting.

I then would read his corrections in the margins and add and subtract Hyatt’s words and paragraphs he inserted or took out. Thereafter, I presented Hyatt with the final version and he would read it again and the process would take place again or he would sign the decision.

At that point, I would take his decision with the “wet” signature and return to the CPMS at my desk, a few feet from Hyatt’s office and enter the information into the Social Security computer program that the ALJ had approved payment and as the date approved. (I would make multiple copies and put the original into Hyatt’s judge’s file, copies to components of SSA, a copy to the attorney and a copy directly to the claimant. I would then address the envelopes and put postage on them and often times would personally carry Hyatt’s decisions to the waiting mailman in the loading dock of the office building where ODAR/OHA was located).

The CPMS computer system was particularly sensitive and Dan Hyatt and I were very happy when we could get CPMS to accept the case. Hyatt knew exactly how many cases he had handled and once when we successfully entered a case as “paid” in CPMS I remember Hyatt saying to me “We have lift-off!”

Contrary to the sworn testimony of Dan Hyatt, he read every single word of his decisions and corrected many paragraphs, adding and subtracting from the decision and changing the order of paragraphs. He wrote long letters to the “writers” (actually they are Attorney-Advisors and are highly paid with many of them becoming Administrative Law Judges after a few years---another perjury of Hyatt. There is no position of “writer” at ODAR SSA Court. He has no “writer” as the head of the Department of Attorney Advisors assigns attorneys to review the evidence and meet with and discuss the case with the alj or follow his written suggestions)

In Oregon State Bar proceedings, after much attention had been drawn to Hyatt's Pitman decision and the misrepresentations therein, Hyatt expressly stated that if he had to make the decision over again, he likely would make the same decision: On page 4 of Exhibit 19 in the Pitman bar complaint matter, Hyatt stated that if he were to hear the case again today, he likely would "produce the same decision [he] did in 1998...."

While Ms. Pitman certainly appears to have suffered awaiting a finding of disability, I believe that if I were to hear her case today, I would likely produce the same decision I did in 1998, as I found her less credible based upon the case that was put on before me by her and her attorney.”

I have reviewed my Decision in that case and have submitted it with the materials I am giving the bar investigator and every finding I made had some support in Ms Pitman’s records or her testimony.

He said this after the reviewing US Magistrate Judge stated that Hyatt lies repeatedly in the Pitman decision. This is a statement he made after reading the briefs and Magistrate Judge Stewart's court decision. This is a statement he made with full knowledge of all the factual inaccuracies in his original decision. He was fully aware that he had misrepresented the evidence in his original decision, but in the OSB proceedings he affirmatively stated that he likely would produce that same misrepresentation-filled decision again, given the chance.

After expressly endorsing that decision in OSB proceedings as a decision he would make again given the chance, he lied in testimony before Judge Papak and disclaimed responsibility for the contents of the Pitman decision, then attributed that decision to a writer who "probably got a little bit carried away."

This is NOT a statement of someone who only read the decision for “flow” in an assembly line justice process for desperate disabled citizens. Hyatt states to the Oregon Bar that his decision in the Pitman case was correct and he again adopts the decision of his “writer” or himself and is apparently proud of his judicial determination.

Before the US Magistrate Court he blows cold and calculating-explains that his writer got “carried away.” and as the Magistrate Judge in Pitman states that Hyatt lied he instead points at the other child on the playground…it was the “my staff of writers” and not me! Hyatt creates distance between the Pitman decision and himself so the Magistrate Judge Papak won’t think that “Hyatt repeatedly lied in the Pitman cases-so he might be lying to me today.”

But, Hyatt blows hot and bold before the Oregon State Bar, pushing his chest out that he was 100% correct and he has re-read his decision in the Pitman case is proud of it and embraces it!

As such, Hyatt has committed perjury to bolster his testimony to convict an innocent person.

This is obviously perjury. Hyatt, a US Navy Veteran and a employee of longer term is entitled to perhaps a month’s vacation. Furthermore, he receives and takes at least ten federal holidays a year. His average of decisions is 428 “cases” a year. He has committed perjury by stating that he “does” 15.6% more cases a year than his official public records show he “does.” (Exhibit E Social Security Production Numbers for 2005-2008) He lies to bolster his credibility to the US Magistrate Judge.

This clearly is perjury. If he works 210 days per year, the cases he “hears” would be 1050 annually if he “heard” five cases a day. It would be 1,260 if he “heard” six cases a day. But in fact he only averages 356 cases a year and only disposes of 428 cases a year. As such he has committed perjury to impress the US Magistrate Judge and bolster his testimony against other witnesses who also testify before the Judge. (Exhibit E)

Hyatt testified: …the bar found the complaint to be unfounded—this was on the Pittman case

This is clearly perjury. Hyatt did not tell the “whole” truth even though he was sworn to do so. Components of the Oregon State Bar stated that there was credible evidence of Hyatt’s lying (as stated in the US Magistrate’s decision) and actions prejudicial to the administration of justice by Hyatt.

“In his ruling against Ms. Pitman, Hyatt allegedly misrepresented the facts as presented at the hearing.

The US District Court magistrate assigned to the appeal found that Hyatt had misrepresented certain evidence presented at the hearing. She reversed the ALJ’s decision.

(Attorney David) Lowry sought a writ of mandamus to have Hyatt investigated and removed from all his future social security cases. (The 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals) did recognize a history of animosity between Lowry and Hyatt.

The complaint against Dan Hyatt implicates DR 1-102A(3) and DR 1-102(A)(4). The magistrate’s decision provides credible evidence of at least a misrepresentation of fact.

Even if (Hyatt’s Pitman decision) are not misrepresentations, there is also credible evidence that his conduct is prejudicial to the administration of justice. This case appears to be one of several in which Hyatt may be letting his feelings for Lowry cloud his judgment as an ALJ. Further, it does not appear that anyone else will take jurisdiction over regulating his (an administrative law judge) conduct.

Based on the above, there is credible evidence of an allegation of misconduct (for repeatedly lying in a decision he wrote, edited and subsequently proudly embraced), which warrants referral of this matter to DCO for further investigation pursuant to BR 2.5(a)(2).

(Exhibit F Client Assistance Office Referral to Disciplinary Counsel’s Office)

Another analysis by the Oregon State Bar deals with Hyatt’s long attempt to weasel out of even addressing the issues by Hyatt’s citadel-like defense that the Oregon State Bar has no jurisdiction over lies he told to a US Magistrate Judge. (Hyatt’s lengthy analysis that OSB has no jurisdiction {Exhibit G} –and as Social Security will do nothing, Hyatt’s lying goes unaddressed) and even some of the lawyers at OS Bar bemoan the fact that Hyatt can’t be disciplined as no one will assume jurisdiction.[1]

But the OSB determined that lying is something one of their bar members should not do and thereafter determines that the Hyatt defenses are attempts to weasel out is not accepted and then recommends discipline against Hyatt for:

2. Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
DR 1-102(A)(4) INVESTIGATE

Hyatt: “And basically she concluded that there was no intentional misrepresentation at all.”

A woman at the Oregon Bar (Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Susan Roedl Cournoyer) in fact found misrepresentation but stated that it wasn’t crucial to the Pitman decision and therefore there was no misrepresentation (sic).

“To the extent (Hyatt) made a misstatement of fact, he clearly did not rely on this discrepancy (sic) to find against Pitman on this point…”

Said another way, the evidence shows that Hyatt lied but it was not instrumental in denying Pitman the benefits she was eventually awarded. Of course, this statement is a far cry from what Hyatt said in the US v. Bernath matter. Hyatt lied by stating “there was no intentional misrepresentation AT ALL.”

But another “She” at the Oregon State Bar saw dishonesty/ misrepresentations and conduct prejudicial to the administration of Justice.

Hyatt lied to the US Magistrate Judge (as he lied in the Pitman decision) to bolster his false testimony in contrast to other witnesses who stated the truth in the Bernath matter.

Hyatt was getting a free lawyer at US Government expense and Hyatt was willing to use that unlimited resource to appeal and appeal any contrary decision regarding jurisdiction over him for lying as a federal alj. Therefore, even after at least two analysis of the Oregon State Bar staff that there was credible evidence of Hyatt’s lying (as the Magistrate Judge stated) the decision was made to drop the matter obviously because the privately funded OS Bar did not want to spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight Hyatt and his free taxpayer funded lawyers from appeals court to appeals court in the Oregon system and eventually through the federal system. So OS Bar dropped the matter to save its resources which is drawn only from Oregon Bar member dues and fees.

Again, Hyatt committed the crime of perjury to the US Magistrate Judge in the Bernath matter by not telling the truth and certainly not telling the “whole truth.”

Dan R. Hyatt raised his right hand, looked him in the eye and took the oath before US Magistrate Judge the Honorable Paul Paypak to “tell the truth, the whole truth.” Hyatt did not tell the Judge that he had TWICE stated that his personal feelings toward Daniel A. Bernath caused him to not be able to rule fairly toward the clients of Daniel A. Bernath and that was so “distracted” by Bernath on another occasion that he missed an ethical obligation to the OS Bar.

As Hyatt had admitted twice, on the record, that his personal feelings toward Daniel A. Bernath were so strongly adverse to Bernath that he could not fairly rule on the facts and law regarding Bernath’s clients, surely this is important for Judge Paypak to know when he was assessing Hyatt’s eye to eye contact testimony in the US v. Bernath case. Hyatt hid that from Judge Papak.

As Hyatt was under oath to “tell the whole truth” and these crucial recusals for personal bad feelings toward Daniel A. Bernath were withheld by Hyatt from Judge Papak, this is surely perjury as he did not tell the Court, “the whole truth.”

ADMISSION OF HYATT BIAS ONE:

“Dan Hyatt then said (during trial to claimant) that he was “not sure” that he could fairly hear the Barry Moody case because of the extra judicial issues and he stated that he would continue (postpone) the hearing to mull over whether these extra judicial issues made it impossible for him to hear a case where I am the attorney without extra judicial bias.

Hyatt: “Your attorney and I have irreconcilable differences (not his exact words) and it wouldn’t be fair to you to hold this hearing. Your case will be put back into the general pool and reassigned to another judge. Do you understand (or do you agree?”)

Furthermore, Hyatt was so distracted by Daniel A. Bernath that he told the Oregon State Bar that he missed reporting his 2008 annual IOLTA certification of compliance because he was distracted from this ethical obligation by his interaction with Bernath.

Most unfortunately, I have been distracted by the Bernath matters this spring and for some reason, forgot that I was required to complete the IOLTA form regardless.

This information of Hyatt’s admitted “distraction” caused by Bernath would impact on his perceptions of what occurred and Hyatt’s subsequent testimony and motivation to lie under oath. Clearly has admissions that he could not perceive the facts when a claimant testified (when Bernath was merely a representative) belies that Hyatt was much more unable to perceive and report the “facts” of the incident where he attacked a 100% service disabled veteran on crutches but reported contrary a story whilst under oath.

As Hyatt was under oath to tell “the whole truth” he committed perjury as he did not reveal this “distraction” and his TWICE admitted animosities and biases against Bernath to Judge Papak so that Judge Papak could assess Hyatt’s flawed perceptions and motive for lying on the stand.

Hyatt: “I didn’t feel that he earned the full $6,000 that he would be entitled to.

Hyatt says that Bernath began to represent clients before him in 2006. Page 12, L 3.

But Hyatt lies again under oath to impress the US Magistrate Judge as to how he was protecting claimant’s from Bernath’s “incompetent” yet surprising nearly always successful representation.

The truth is, that from January 17, 2002 to February 4, 2009 the maximum fee an attorney could be paid with withholding was $5,300. Exhibit K Federal Register Vol 74, No 22. Page 1080, center column 2/3 down “Supplemental Information”

While Hyatt might say that this “slipped his mind”, with so many other “slips” of the mind, in the midst of a criminal trial which convicted an innocent man because of his testimony, this is clearly perjury by Dan R. Hyatt. This demonstrates that Dan R. Hyatt has lied to Judge Papak in all things-large and small.

Did you have occasion to talk to (Defendant Bernath) and get to know him a little bit? (when he was one of the clerks working for you at SSA Court/ODAR)

Hyatt: Well, I didn’t particularly. I was a little bit put off by him. I thought he was a little strange.

I never discussed it (the shared US Navy Vietnam War experiences) really with him.[2] (Emphasis added)

But in testimony later that day Hyatt says that he does know Bernath on a personal level, “I assume he is married because he has talked about his wife.”

But that’s just the beginning of the evidence of perjury from Hyatt with many exhibits coming directly from the hands of the perjurer.

In truth, Dan R. Hyatt took Bernath under his wing, discussing their Navy experiences and other war stories, Hyatt mentoring Bernath on how to become an administrative law judge, including giving Bernath Hyatt’s own application (Exhibit L) to show Bernath how to do it.

Hyatt gave Bernath a phone number to look up and website in Washington DC to get the latest news on the process of becoming an alj and then handing Bernath a post it note stating From the Desk of Dan R. Hyatt (exhibit O) for Bernath to write the information on.

Hyatt invited Bernath into his office where he has 3 papers in a frame. One of them is the citation for his Bronze Star. The other two were for pats on the back from his employers for conducting two murder trials. As the pages were reduced in size I had to bend over to read it and he then discussed it with me. I made a joke (as the pages were reduced) that “I see the Navy used a very small typewriter for your Bronze Star. Hyatt also made jokes about my service aboard aircraft carriers and flying into Vietnam and flying back to a warm bunk on ship when he had to stay in country on a mine sweeper.

There are extensive notes on the close personal friendship between Hyatt and Bernath (Exhibit P) and by his giving his application for alj to Bernath, inviting him in for counseling as to how to handle himself at the interview, the company, its address and phone number which would assist Bernath to groom Bernath to beat the competition for alj, all reveal that Hyatt committed perjury when he said “I didn’t particularly (talk to Bernath).”

I never discussed it(the shared US Navy Vietnam War experiences) really with him.

Bernath was in Hyatt’s office several times a day working on Hyatt’s files, adding exhibits, etc., bringing in decisions that Bernath had corrected AND for the alj job counseling sessions and discussions about the US Navy and the US Army Air Force in World War Two. (See Declaration in Motion to recuse Hyatt P)

Bernath is 100% service connected disabled because of his ingestion of jet plane fuel after warplane crashes and Agent Orange poisoning. Ironically when both were employees of ODAR, Bernath was talking “Navy” with Hyatt and asked, “Were you exposed to agent orange. Did you ever see it?” Hyatt replied, “No it was always THERE and we were always HERE. I saw it on the dock but I wasn’t exposed.”

It is unclear why Hyatt would commit perjury over this relationship except that after Hyatt learned that Bernath was married to a Chinese woman, Hyatt would not talk to Bernath any further. Bernath invited Hyatt to the Chinese New Year Party and the invitation had his name and his wife’s name M. Wong. (exhibit Q)

While it is unclear WHY he committed perjury, there is no doubt that Dan R. Hyatt COMMITTED perjury. He pleads that he is not a racist even though Mrs. Bondurant took an oath to quote him as saying he had trouble with interracial couples and that she was white trash for being married to a (dying) black man. Using this same twisted reasoning, Hyatt might have thought Bernath was good material for administrative law judge as a fellow US Navy veteran but violently changed his mind when he discovered that Bernath was also “white trash.”

Hyatt: As administrative law judge we have got to represent the Social Security Trust Fund

Hyatt is NOT there to represent the Social Security “trust fund”[3] and that was not part of his oath. It is clearly NOT part of his job description which states that he mere act a finder of facts, the presiding person on motions and then issue “decisions, along with written findings of fact and conclusions of law therein.” (Exhibit R). His duties are as an “ALJ serv(ing) as independent impartial trier of facts informal proceedings requiring a decision on the record after the opportunity to be heard.” (Exhibit R, p3.)

“ALJs must be held to a high standard of conduct to maintain the integrity and independence of the administrative judiciary.” (Exhibit R p4)

As such, it is perjury made to impress the US Magistrate Judge, even though the US Supreme Court has called alj’s a "a special class of … subordinate hearing officers" RAMSPECK V. FEDERAL TRIAL EXAMINERS CONF., 345 U. S. 128, 132 (1953)

Then our third hat is basically to represent the interests of the Government.

This is clearly, indisputably perjury. No judge represents the “interests” of the government since the Nazi judges were convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg.[4] Dan R. Hyatt took an oath to support and defend The Constitution of the United States and enforce its laws. He clearly is trying to impress the US Magistrate Judge and convict an innocent person by perjury. (See discussion above and Exhibit R)

Hyatt said under oath: No. 2, we have to protect the rights of the claimant and make sure that they are adequately represented or treated fairly enough that their fee would be justified (attorney performance) has to pass muster with the trial judge or the hearing judge.

Hyatt says that he can deny or reduce an attorney’s fees. This is clearly not the law and perjury by Hyatt and Hyatt knows it because the Chief Judge in Region X keeps telling Hyatt that that when he overturns Hyatt’s improper harassment of attorney Wilborn, attorney Lowry and attorney Bernath by wrongfully denying them attorney fees as he has no jurisdiction to do so.

He has denied Bernath attorney fees on each case and has been overturned by the Chief Social Security Judge in Region X each time. 42 U.S.C. § 406(a)(3).[5] (Exhibit S) Hyatt has no authority to reduce a fee Bernath or any other advocate has a valid fee agreement. He can APPROVE IT and then request that the fee be reduced via the procedures in that statutory provision, but he cannot himself reduce it.

Hyatt was attempting to give himself more power than by lying under oath to impress the US Magistrate Judge to convict an innocent man. As such, Dan R. Hyatt committed perjury.

I was concerned that his client—if they knowingly hiring him to represent them, that they would be aware that he was a suspended attorney.

Bernath had never been suspended by the California Bar and clearly was an active member in good standing for approximately 25 years. Even giving Hyatt the benefit of the doubt that Bernath was “involuntarily inactive” in 1994, he clearly was NOT “a suspended attorney” in 2006 by any definition. Hyatt lied under oath to Judge Papak. Hyatt knew this as it was written on the SSA 1696 form which asked if the advocate was suspended. Bernath answered correctly that he was not suspended by any State Bar or from any federal agency.

Hyatt committed this perjury to decrease Bernath’s credibility and reduce his standing in the eyes of the US Magistrate Judge.

He sent a letter to—it ostensibly went to 3,000 lawyers. It had the Oregon State Bar logo on top of it.

The letter does not have the Oregon State Bar Logo on it.

(exhibit T) This is a bald faced perjury by Dan R. Hyatt. As Hyatt lies on matters large and small clearly he cannot be believed at any time.

Hyatt Perjury: (Bernath wrote) I’m the Oregon State Bar investigative reporter investigating Judge Hyatt.

The letter shows no such thing. It states Oregon State Bar Reporter, Daniel A. Bernath, Editor, Regularly Publishing on the internet. There is a picture of Daniel A. Bernath and no logo. It is signed by Daniel A. Bernath, Editor. It urges news holders to come forward and their identity will be protected under the Oregon Shield Law. This solicitation for news has yielded instances of Hyatts unlawful conduct in eliminated expert witnesses who might find a claimant disabled. (Exhibit T)

Oregon State Bar Reporter has been publishing since 1999 and has won many national awards. (Exhibit U) as Hyatt wells knows as he has visited that news site perhaps hundreds of times. Therefore, Hyatt again has committed perjury.

(private information on disk that Hyatt was punished for sending outside of the agency after repeated warnings that he must not violate privacy laws)

Hyatt: “It had claimant’s Social Security number on it, which I didn’t even know.

This is indisputably perjury. In his defense of his repeated violations of claimant’s privacy rights he stated that he didn’t think that sending a Social Security number to an outsider was a violation of the privacy laws. Now he changes his story and says that he DIDN’T SEE THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.

The Oregon State Bar need merely look at the disk that Hyatt admits he handled, transported and then handed to an Oregon State Bar employee. The SS number is written on the outside. Hyatt expects the world to believe that he was looking to space when he picked up the disk from the court reporter-drove all the way to the OS Bar offices and kept his eyes up and away from the disk and then when handing it to the OS Bar employee had his eyes averted or staring at the OS Bar ceiling. This is pure and simple perjury to weasel out of his bad acts (as he also takes credit for the lie-filled Pitman decision but then when his purpose suits him, changes course and blames the Pitman lies on a co-worker).

Hyatt said: The gravemen of the charges—there were three charges. One was that I had released the unauthorized release of a Social Security number of a claimant. The other that I filed a bar complaint against Mr. Bernath. And then the third was that I discouraged a woman in our office from reporting it…

The perjury is that he was charged with lying to the Social Security Administration “when he was not fully candid when responding to questions about his actions regarding the disclosure of PII and a complaint against a representative, and WHEN HE PROVIDED INACCURATE INFORMATION TO OS BAR INVESTIGATORS.”

“(Dan R. Hyatt) provided inconsistent statements, just one day apart, to two investigative bodies. Each statement purported to justify his actions for each examining authority’s different purpose.”

Of course, Hyatt did not want US Magistrate Judge Papak to know that Hyatt was charged with lying to the OS Bar and to Social Security investigators. Again, Hyatt did not tell “the whole truth” and by blatantly saying that there were three charges but leaving out what the true charge Number III. Hyatt committed perjury before US Magistrate Judge Papak.

Hyatt says that he volunteered to be suspended for only 4 days. However, a judge from another district was brought in to hear cases in Hyatt’s Courtroom (which he shares with Atkins) for 30 days. OS Bar should require that he produce the actual Order that suspends him to see if he told US Magistrate Judge Papak the truth when he said he admitted to no wrongdoing and the penalty was only 4 days instead of 30 days suspension as the prosecutor of Hyatt’s untruthfulness demanded.

{Version Three-in court under oath}
I said, “you need to back up. And he said: No, I’m not going to. I said: Why don’t you take another elevator? Hyatt said “You need to back up.”

I told him “you have assaulted me and if you don’t back up I am going to call security.”

Hyatt, because he is committing perjury and is transmitting a complete fiction cannot keep the details straight. In his report allegedly made on the date of the assault by Hyatt (or Bernath) Hyatt first says swears that Bernath said “you back up.”

But in his sworn testimony before US Magistrate Judge Papek, Hyatt says nothing in this regard but quotes himself as saying multiple times that Bernath should “back up”.

Hyatt in his written statement performs like a Shakespearean actor stating “you have assaulted me!” But during his sworn testimony this grand statement is omitted-because no such comment was made by Hyatt at the time of his assault of Bernath.

{Version One} “I noticed that Bernath and his clients (2) were about 20 feet behind me. As I began to enter the elevator Bernath came around the corner.”

{Version Three} And did you—did it come to your attention that Mr. Bernath was in the vicinity?

Hyatt: Yes. He was standing there with the two clients talking about what an idiot Judge Atkins was.

Hyatt changes his story by first stating that he noticed Bernath was 20 feet behind him. But at trial Hyatt changes his story (under oath) and says that he “walked past (Bernath).” There is no way that these details are consistent. Either Hyatt lied under oath or lied to the federal investigator when he made the report.

He stuck his cane in the left side of the elevator door to keep it from closing.

So he was shoving it (his cane)—he was pushing it that way. He is facing me. So he was shoving it in the door to keep the door from closing.

Here, Hyatt sweetened his story. No cane was stuck anywhere but onto the floor to keep Bernath, a 100% service disabled veteran from falling over (especially after Hyatt struck him twice, causing Bernath to suffer two hernias and thereafter suffer two hernia operations at Kaiser Permante).

Sweetening the story is termed perjury[7] when the speaker is under oath in a US District court.

Hyatt can’t keep his story straight because he made it all up. When he lies in US District Court under oath then he has committed perjury.

Prosecutor: Were they (clients of Bernath) in a position to see this initial contact between the two of you?

He (Bernath) said to his clients (who were standing there during the assault on Bernath) “did you see that?” One of his clients said “he won’t let you on the elevator.”

Once again, Hyatt made up the entire store. He assaulted a 100% service connected veteran and has made up multiple stories with different “details” to cover it all. But, he can’t keep his stories straight[8]. It is perjury by Dan R. Hyatt.

Hyatt: Well he came up to Bernath and he said: You need to move. Bernath said, No, I am not going to. And then he said (private guard), Well, I am going to have to arrest you. And at that point Bernath started to back up.

I thought the guard had his hand on Bernath’s arm and was pulling him but I can’t swear to that.

But Hyatt wrote out a version a few minutes after he assaulted Bernath and this version shows that Hyatt added details when he discovered that walking quickly to an elevator and bumping into someone in an urban setting is not a crime:

{Version One}…just then security came around the corner. The securuity (sic) guard came up and told Bernath to back up. He finally stepped back a foot or so.

After he wrote out that report for litigation and before he was prepped for trial he provided a Version Three-The Oregonian Newspaper 6.2.2010, with Award Winning Journalist/Crime Reporter Bryan Denson interviewing Dan R. Hyatt:

{Version Two} The judge says Bernath…used his cane to block the door from closing…

He (Dan R. Hyatt) Bernath then refused to move away until a security guard pulled him off

So when Hyatt explains what happened a few minutes in his statement with the misspelled word {Version One} he says merely Bernath stepped back.

But with time to roll his own assault around in his mind and lie his way out of it, he fabricates a scenario that would make the actors of Jersey Shore envious. He adds drama, a little danger, confrontation, Good over Evil. The truth is-Hyatt attacked Bernath straight on as Bernath struggled to stay upright. The two blows by Hyatt caused the 100% US Navy service connected disabled Bernath to undergo two hernia repair operations.

Version Two to the newspaper reporter has emphatically states that Bernath (1) refused to move,
(2) shouted and
(3) a security guard PULLED HIM OFF Hyatt.

But, during the sworn testimony, {Version Three} Hyatt dropped that part of his fantasy-and like all fantasies it becomes cloudy and gauzy. The truth is, nothing of the sort happened. Hyatt attacked Bernath and came up with this fantasy to keep his job as an alj. Even alj’s can’t attack 100% disabled service connected veterans who are using two crutches to stay upright[9].

Hyatt uttered his perjuries without reading the police investigation. Instead Hyatt provided the Court with a pant load. The “Executive Summary’ Official Use Only states:

BERNATH was ordered by a Protective Security Officer (PSO) to back away from Hyatt and BERNATH complied.

In the version {2}he told the Oregonian reporter Bernath was “shouting “Are you arresting me?” (no such comment appears in any police report or any testimony) In his earlier-pre trial preparation version there is no Bernath” shouting”. Bernath, according to Hyatt’s first version was told to back up by the security policeman and Bernath complied with no shouting and no indignant refusal to follow the officer’s order until threatened with arrest.

Hyatt, with the mind of a child, committed perjury by fabricating this story, refining it and expanding upon it to fit his needs. (The same thing he did when he lied to the Oregon State Bar and the Social Security Administration- flipping his story from one version to another version in 24 hours)

First he says that a guard came up and Bernath stepped back and the guard came almost instantly. But under oath before the Honorable Magistrate Judge Papak he makes up a sweetens the story again with more fiction and for more drama. It was simple perjury by Dan R. Hyatt.

It appears that Hyatt wrote one version and was coached by person or persons unknown that no crime had been committed by Bernath unless he blocked the elevator (that Hyatt already admitted that he blocked). Hyatt had to be told that the only way to convict Bernath was to say that Bernath was blocking an elevator that Hyatt was blocking (sic) and this crime took place for at least “one minute”. As such, perjury by a man calling himself “Judge” and wearing a black robe, has convicted an innocent man. This member of the Oregon Bar must be disbarred to protect the public of Oregon and Washington State.

Clearly this is more perjury by Dan R. Hyatt. Bernath has been complaining about the Oregon State Bar spineliness in taking on the unethical conduct of Dan R. Hyatt as the OS Bar in most, if not all cases, either states they can’t for a certainty prevail at a trial, where Hyatt has free US government lawyers where the standard is “clear and convincing.” A review of the complaints by Bernath and the dismissals merely because he is a federal administrative law judge or the bar prosecutor cannot meet the clear and convincing standard is NOT a dismissal “after a full investigation” where Hyatt attempts to convince Judge Papak that all the complaints were non-sense. For example, in the matter where Hyatt said he would recuse himself from all Bernath cases if Bernath took down his archives of complaints that Oregon citizens had filed against him, the Oregon State Bar said

Bernath has made several complaints about the conduct of ALJ Hyatt. The most serious allegations is that Hyatt engaged in the criminal act of coercion by threatening to not to recuse himself (even though admittedly biased Exhibit I and J) from SSA cases in which the claimant was represented by Bernath until Bernath removed references to Hyatt from his website and send (sic) a letter retracting an earlier letter.

Both Bernath’s and Hyatt’s stories are possible…the emails and voice mail lend some weight to Bernath’s version (that Hyatt was guilty of criminal coercion by offering a federal service/recusal if Bernath waived his right to keep an archieve of complaints that citizens had filed against Hyatt)

They certainly do not prove that Hyatt tried to coerce Bernath, but they provide a small bit of supporting evidence.

Arguably, Hyatt should not have been using his staff to follow up on what was a personal matter between himself and Bernath.

Once again, Hyatt committed his oath to tell the truth, “the whole “truth” by not stating that the complaints that Bernath had filed were dismissed because the Oregon State Bar did not want to tangle with him and his claim that he was exempt from their ethics rules.

Hyatt also committed perjury by not telling “the whole truth” that there was “weight” to the truthful allegation in the Bernath bar complaint that Hyatt used his position to coerce a private citizen.

Demand is hereby made that the Oregon State Bar investigate Weinhouse OSB #77386 as to how he read Version One of Hyatt, Read Version Two in the Oregonian, HEARD version three in preparing Hyatt for trial and at the trial itself but did not stop Hyatt from testifying when he was committing perjury. An member of the Oregon Bar may not proceed with a witness when that bar member has reason to believe that that witness will commit perjury.

This witness has been prepared for trial and apparently has been OVER-coached. Hyatt provided one version of the events before his meeting with Weinhouse. He gives a second new version to the gentlemen of the press. He then presents a different set of details after being prepared by trial by Weinhouse. The Court should order, and Bernath hereby makes the motion that Weinhouse be questioned as to what Hyatt said before trial to him, what Weinhouse told him how to handle the facts and in what ways Hyatt changed his story.

It is interesting to note that Asst. US Attorney Weinhouse has already held found Hyatt did NOT commit perjury (Exhibit AA). Of course, there can be no subornation of perjury if there is no underlying perjury by Hyatt. There is an obvious conflict of interest between the US Attorney and Dan R. Hyatt who committed perjury scores of times and alternative counsel to prosecute this case and hear post trial motions must be ordered. Demand is hereby made that Weinhouse explain his part, under oath in the presentation of perjurious statements by Dan R. Hyatt that convicted an innocent man.

The issues before the US Magistrate Court are not collateral but direct to this matter. The bias of witness Dan R. Hyatt toward Daniel A. Bernath, as is the bias of any witness, is never collateral. Justice will not be served if the many perjuries of Dan R. Hyatt are not addressed. Furthermore, the issues of Hyatt’s making a silk purse from a sow’s ear would be a credit to him if he was a novel writer. But as he lied under oath about THE EVENTS that constitute the key elements of a crime, the perjury is direct and not merely collateral.

The motion to set aside judgment is made because of discovery of new evidence and because of the gross and repeated perjuries of the prosecutor’s star and only real witness. The responsibility to set aside a verdict based upon the perjured testimony of a person titled “Judge” is a responsibility imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Cf. Galloway v. United States, 319 U. S. 372 (1943). This Court thus has US Constitutional authority to set aside the judgment and/or order a new trial and also statutory and equitable authority:

Rule 60. Relief from Judgment or Order (a) Corrections Based on Clerical Mistakes; Oversights and Omissions.
The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. But after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending, such a mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court's leave.
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding.

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

Clearly, the repeated perjuries to convict a member of the Bar, with 2,500 approximate clients, with 25 years’ service without any ethical violation would be an equitable reason to set aside the judgment and/or order a new trial. The US Magistrate Court must be clearly offended by the perjuries of Dan R. Hyatt. All of the US Magistrate Judges and US District Court Judges are called “Your Honor” as is Dan R. Hyatt. All of the judges wear the black robe signifying that their prejudices are not in play but merely their intellect and ability to judge facts-just as Dan R. Hyatt wears that indicia.

All the judges at the US District Court serve the public and the US Constitution with honor. But not so, Judge Dan R. Hyatt. He must be a great disappointment and embarrassment to all others who have earned the trust of the American people as jurists as Dan R. Hyatt shows nothing but contempt for the judicial profession by his repeated perjuries and intentional cruelties that have been perpetrated on the public for the past 13 years. The American system of justice exists only because the American people trust its jurists and follow its orders. Dan R. Hyat’s perjuries are a fundamental threat to this centuries old trust that the American people have for jurists and the judicial system.

While it is a disgrace that this man who has the title “judge” after his name commits perjury after perjury and injury after injury to the citizens of Oregon, the true tragedy is that the OSB does not have the courage to discipline Hyatt and protect these helpless citizens from his lies and assaults on Justice.

[1] If the Oregon State Bar is afraid to discipline this lawyer, if the Social Security Administration refuses to discipline him and if the US Attorney is preparing him for trial and Hyatt commits perjury over 25 times THEREFORE the only protection the public has is US Magistrate Judge Papak and the action he takes.

[1] And yet, he remember the ship that Bernath served on in the Tonkin Gulf off the coast of North Vietnam, The USS Kearsarge. Transcript p 10 L 19

[1] There is NO Social Security Trust Fund. The trust fund contains the securities that will be redeemed to make benefit payments in the future when contributions derived from payroll taxes and self-employment contributions no longer are sufficient to fully fund then-current benefit payments. (The controversy over its meaningfulness is a topic of the sustainability of the unified Federal budget.)

[1] Two features of German law combined to facilitate the Nazi's schemes. The first was that German law, unlike the law of the United States and many other nations, lacked "higher law" (constitutional or ethical standards) that might be resorted to by judges to avoid the harsh effects of discriminatory laws adopted by the Nazi regime. The second difficulty was that there was no separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches of government. Hitler declared, and the Reichstag agreed, had the power "to intervene in any case." http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/Alstoetter.htm

[1] (2)(A) In the case of a claim of entitlement to past-due benefits under this title, if—(i) an agreement between the claimant and another person regarding any fee to be recovered by such person to compensate such person for services with respect to the claim is presented in writing to the Commissioner of Social Security prior to the time of the Commissioner's determination regarding the claim,
(ii) the fee specified in the agreement does not exceed the lesser of—
(I) 25 percent of the total amount of such past-due benefits (as determined before any applicable reduction under section 1127(a)), or
(II) $4,000, and
(iii) the determination is favorable to the claimant, then the Commissioner of Social Security shall approve that agreement at the time of the favorable determination, and (subject to paragraph (3)) the fee specified in the agreement shall be the maximum fee. The Commissioner of Social Security may from time to time increase the dollar amount under clause (ii)(II) to the extent that the rate of increase in such amount, as determined over the period since January 1, 1991, does not at any time exceed the rate of increase in primary insurance amounts under section 215(i) since such date. The Commissioner of Social Security shall publish any such increased amount in the Federal Register.

[1] Hyatt tries to weasel out of his full knowledge that the Social Security number was on the disk by saying it was in a “jewel case”. P 20, L 21 (I had the court reporter dup(licate) off a copy and put it in a jewell case” He leaves out the fact that the jewel case is transparent in but another attempt to NOT tell the “whole truth” but leave a different impression with Judge Pakak. It is interesting to note that his defense before SSA for this wrongful act was he didn’t think that providing a Social Security number was against regulation. That defense fell flat. So now, as a child, Hyatt comes up with a new defense, “I didn’t see it!” “It was in a (transparent) jewell case!” Just like he blames his “writers” for lying in the Pitman decision after much earlier taking proud and full credit for the Pitman decision, like a child, he again says “it’s all someone elses fault!”

[1] Its almost if Hyatt wrote down a statement as requested by the US Attorney and someone told him thereafter that walking quickly to an elevator by Bernath and bumping into someone in an urban setting at an elevator door did not constitute disorderly conduct BUT that keeping the door open for just one minute was disorderly conduct. Please note that the US Attorney worked very hard to get people to say that the elevator door was opened for at least one full minute. In truth, the door was opened for such a short period of time that the buzzer didn’t even go off on the elevator. Prosecutor “Was the door trying to close? Hyatt: I honestly don’t remember.” By Hyatt stating “I honestly don’t remember” does Hyatt mean that the rest of his testimony is NOT honest?

There was no testimony that the elevator had a bell going “ding, ding, ding, ding, like it was trying to close.” Hyatt p34 L2-5. Witnesses say that the elevator at the Duncan Federal Building does not ‘ding ding ding ding ding” but in fact there is a BUZZER. Furthermore, the police witness of the prosecutor gave detailed information of what he observed and he did not say that the elevator was trying to close and the mechanism was going: ‘ding ding ding ding ding”. This appears to be another lie by Dan R. Hyatt to convict and innocent man.

[1] “No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.” – Abraham Lincoln

[1] Hyatt’s attack on Bernath occurred in two waves. He hit Bernath with his chest in an attempt to throw the handicapped veteran onto his back. When he saw he did not accomplish that goal, Hyatt then hit Bernath HARDER but this time with his chest and stomach. Bernath has suffered two hernias that have required surgery because of Hyatt’s attack.

[2] And yet, he remember the ship that Bernath served on in the Tonkin Gulf off the coast of North Vietnam, The USS Kearsarge. Transcript p 10 L 19

[3] There is NO Social Security Trust Fund. The trust fund contains the securities that will be redeemed to make benefit payments in the future when contributions derived from payroll taxes and self-employment contributions no longer are sufficient to fully fund then-current benefit payments. (The controversy over its meaningfulness is a topic of the sustainability of the unified Federal budget.)

[4] Two features of German law combined to facilitate the Nazi's schemes. The first was that German law, unlike the law of the United States and many other nations, lacked "higher law" (constitutional or ethical standards) that might be resorted to by judges to avoid the harsh effects of discriminatory laws adopted by the Nazi regime. The second difficulty was that there was no separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches of government. Hitler declared, and the Reichstag agreed, had the power "to intervene in any case." http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/Alstoetter.htm

[5] (2)(A) In the case of a claim of entitlement to past-due benefits under this title, if—(i) an agreement between the claimant and another person regarding any fee to be recovered by such person to compensate such person for services with respect to the claim is presented in writing to the Commissioner of Social Security prior to the time of the Commissioner's determination regarding the claim,
(ii) the fee specified in the agreement does not exceed the lesser of—
(I) 25 percent of the total amount of such past-due benefits (as determined before any applicable reduction under section 1127(a)), or
(II) $4,000, and
(iii) the determination is favorable to the claimant, then the Commissioner of Social Security shall approve that agreement at the time of the favorable determination, and (subject to paragraph (3)) the fee specified in the agreement shall be the maximum fee. The Commissioner of Social Security may from time to time increase the dollar amount under clause (ii)(II) to the extent that the rate of increase in such amount, as determined over the period since January 1, 1991, does not at any time exceed the rate of increase in primary insurance amounts under section 215(i) since such date. The Commissioner of Social Security shall publish any such increased amount in the Federal Register.

[6] Hyatt tries to weasel out of his full knowledge that the Social Security number was on the disk by saying it was in a “jewel case”. P 20, L 21 (I had the court reporter dup(licate) off a copy and put it in a jewell case” He leaves out the fact that the jewel case is transparent in but another attempt to NOT tell the “whole truth” but leave a different impression with Judge Pakak. It is interesting to note that his defense before SSA for this wrongful act was he didn’t think that providing a Social Security number was against regulation. That defense fell flat. So now, as a child, Hyatt comes up with a new defense, “I didn’t see it!” “It was in a (transparent) jewell case!” Just like he blames his “writers” for lying in the Pitman decision after much earlier taking proud and full credit for the Pitman decision, like a child, he again says “it’s all someone elses fault!”

[7] Its almost if Hyatt wrote down a statement as requested by the US Attorney and someone told him thereafter that walking quickly to an elevator by Bernath and bumping into someone in an urban setting at an elevator door did not constitute disorderly conduct BUT that keeping the door open for just one minute was disorderly conduct. Please note that the US Attorney worked very hard to get people to say that the elevator door was opened for at least one full minute. In truth, the door was opened for such a short period of time that the buzzer didn’t even go off on the elevator. Prosecutor “Was the door trying to close? Hyatt: I honestly don’t remember.” By Hyatt stating “I honestly don’t remember” does Hyatt mean that the rest of his testimony is NOT honest?

[8] “No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.” – Abraham Lincoln

[9] Hyatt’s attack on Bernath occurred in two waves. He hit Bernath with his chest in an attempt to throw the handicapped veteran onto his back. When he saw he did not accomplish that goal, Hyatt then hit Bernath HARDER but this time with his chest and stomach. Bernath has suffered two hernias that have required surgery because of Hyatt’s attack.

Re: Your bar member Dan R. Hyatt-perjury before a United States District Court Magistrate PHASE TWO

Hyatt committed perjury when he told US Magistrate Judge Papak that attorney Dan Bernath was in his office when a painting was given to him “out of the blue”.

The truth is that there was never any painting arrived “out of the blue” from “the guy who wrote a book.” The original painting is with the artist. Dan Hyatt PURCHASED two copies after the book was published as the painting was made for the book cover. (one for his office and one for his home said the seller). See Report of Inquiry Agent Snelling.

There was never any “painting.” It was a scanned copy of the painting retained by the artist. (says the seller)

Either Hyatt is a very creative and prolific liar/perjurer or he has visions of Dan Bernath appearing in remote and secure places. Daniel A. Bernath left the employ of the Social Security Court (ODAR) in mid October 2005. The painting was created ONE TO TWO YEARS after Bernath left the employ of Social Security Court (ODAR) and was created because the author commissioned it for the book cover. (Declaration of Investigators who interviewed Artist) (Exhibit-Book Title Page and Book Exhibit 2-001)(Copy of Bernath’s becoming Active Member of California Bar again in March 2005 Exhibit 2-002).

Dan R. Hyatt lies to this Court by stating that Bernath was in his office as his clerk in 2006 or 2007 at a time when Bernath had without a doubt become a private practice attorney again in October 2005. (Exhibit of SSA/Dan Bernath tax reporting paper)

Dan Bernath did not call Hyatt a racist-not once. (Unless Hyatt admitting in Court that he WAS a racist in the past “I WAS a racist.”) Bernath put the direct testimony of Mrs. Bondurant who testified under oath before US Magistrate Judge Papak over a cartoon of a KKK person and also published the Official Bar Complaint against Dan R. Hyatt for stating that he had trouble with interracial marriages and that a woman who married a black man was “white trash.” (Exhibit 2- (President Obama’s mother is “white trash”?). It was a political cartoon and Mr. Bernath called nobody a racist and published only protected public documents.

There was never “BS” on any website about Hyatt. Hyatt threatened to sue Bernath for libel but did not because he knew all accusations by people who filed complaints against Hyatt were true and were protected speech. For example, Hyatt went off the record as a judge and told a claimant “I don’t care what the medical records say, I’m never going to put you on disability. I’m the judge.” Then Hyatt went back on the record and proceeded to deny this person disability. That person then began the process to kill herself because of Hyatt but was rescued and then hospitalized. None of what was published by the web newspaper Oregon State Bar Reporter was “BS”. (Exhibit 2-003)

The Sheriff’s Department Investigative Report does not mention that Dan R. Hyatt was there that day or at that time. (Attached) Just like he had a vision that Bernath was in his office two years after Bernath left the employ of SSA, perhaps Dan Hyatt also has visions that Hyatt appears at places. (Exhibit 2-004)

It was Abraham Lincoln who said, “no man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.” Dan R. Hyatt can’t remember what he told WHOM about even which High School he attended. He tells the Court “I graduated from Redwood High School, which is in Marine County (California).”

But then on a website he states he went to Long Beach City High School. Investigation of Snelling-and Exhibits 2-005)

The evidence appears to show this is but another pack of lies by Dan R. Hyatt under oath. Investigator Snelling states “Mr. Hyatt was in high school at either Redwood…or Long Beach during this time (of the Aviator Cadet program) and was not enlisted at that time.”

Furthermore, “Second ex wife Karen (Hyatt) stated…that Hyatt had never told her that he was in an aviation cadet program and believed that he would have if it were a fact.”

And yet, later, Hyatt states that Bernath belittled the “painting” of his fire fight in Vietnam while Hyatt was discussing it with Bernath.

Hyatt says that he wouldn’t “talk Navy” with Bernath but admits in his sworn testimony that he did a few minutes in the same sworn testimony. Either his first statement is the perjury, or the second statement is the perjury.

All jewel boxes that the Social Security Administration has issued (private contractor hearing reporters) are transparent or translucent and can clearly show the social security number through the “jewel box.” (Exhibit V-1, V-2, V-3). Hyatt deceives the US Magistrate Judge by stating that the disk was in a “jewel box” and therefore, he could not see the number. The truth is that even if in a jewel box the number can be clearly seen through the translucent or transparent box. (All boxes used by Social Security in this time frame are provided and are clearly translucent or transparent) (Exhibit 2-006)

The charge against Hyatt was that he provided confidential information outside of the Social Security Administration after being warned repeatedly not to violate the law but went ahead but lied to SSA and did so anyway. He was thus charged with lying to the SSA and also with violating privacy laws. In his defense before the Oregon State Bar for this wrongful act was he didn’t think that providing a Social Security number was against regulation. That defense fell flat in light of the several warnings to him about the law, his failure to follow it and his broken promises to obey the law. (Exhibit V-4-Hyatt’s defense to Oregon State Bar regarding theft of US Government property).

Please note that Hyatt knew the defense of “I didn’t know” won’t work as he was warned repeatedly and acknowledged his responsibilities (Charge by Social Security Administration against Dan R. Hyatt for dishonesty and violating SSA regulations)

Therefore, before US Magistrate Judge Papak, Hyatt blamed the court reporter and a jewel case AND deceived the Hon. Papak by stating that he was disciplined only because he revealed a Social Security number. In his defense before the OS Bar, Hyatt says NOTHING about a jewel case and does not try to blame a jewel case and a court reporter but instead says “so…what’s the big deal” and “you can’t touch me, I’m an administrative law judge for the federal government.”

Therefore, Hyatt’s deceiving Judge Papak as to what Hyatt was charged with by OS Bar and the Social Security Administration was perjury (lying to SSA, repeatedly violating regulations) and not just giving up a CD. Hyatt’s perjury, showing his latest’s dodge for his antics is blaming a court reporter when the issue was NOT giving up a SSA number but was much broader.

1. Hyatt lied directly to the US District Court about what he was really charged with and also

2. Deceived the US District Court by coming up with an entirely new story to cover up his crime.

Dan R. Hyatt does NOT represent the Social Security Administration. Please see attached Congressional Research Service, Administrative Law Judges: an Overview “To insulate ALJ’s from agency influence, the APA expressly provides that an ALJ may not “be responsible to or subject to the Supervision (of) an agency.” (Exhibit 2.006)

Hyatt did not tell the whole truth when presenting himself as a truthful person when he handed US Magistrate Judge Papak with official complaints to the Oregon State Bar but did not present other documents on his reputation for being untruthful[1]:

Lowry represents social security claimants, and Dan R. Hyatt is an administrative law judge who often presides over his cases. Lowry says uses "intimidation and anger as a tactic to shorten [his] hearings," refuses to hear evidence and denies him cross-examination. also supposedly told two claimants that Lowry was a "poor attorney who does a poor job." Lowry began filing motions to recuse from his cases, and responded with letters to Lowry's clients defending his impartiality and encouraging them to ask about their "rights to representation." ... Lowry once called Dan R. Hyatt a "baldfaced liar" on the record....

Although we conclude that the bias procedures are not judicially enforceable, we are not unsympathetic to Lowry's predicament. The Administration's unexplained decade-long delinquency in promulgating final procedures and its lackadaisical handling of Lowry's complaint raise serious concerns about its commitment to the values the procedures purport to embrace.

David B. LOWRY, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Jo Anne BARNHART, in her capacity as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration; Dan R. Hyatt ; Riley Atkins; Bennett Engelman, Defendants-Appellees

Hyatt did not reveal that in Court filings, across the street at Multnomah County that he had been repeatedly accused of beating his wives, breaking a bone in one hand, slamming a car door onto a wives’ leg, yelling at her, blocking her from calling for help and “…should be hospitalized.” (Multnomah County Court)

Dan R. Hyatt is incapable of telling the truth either because he finds it convienent (that is what the Social Security prosecutor opined were his motives) or because he is incapable of perception and incapable of telling the truth because of some physical or mental issues.

One of Dan R. Hyatt’s ex wives “said Dan Hyatt had difficulty telling the truth. He lied about where he was and who he was with. …and what kind of work he was doing. Big things and small things. She said he’d been seeing her (sexually apparently) while married to his first wife and had been “seeing” his current wife while married to her.”

Dan Hyatt can’t keep his stories straight. He clearly can tell his version of reality when he explains to US Magistrate Judge Papak that he is an Administrative Law Judge-an employee of Social Security.

I was “appointed US Administrative Law Judge, met wonderful woman, remarried…”

But when bragging to his Navy pals he wants to appear as if he was nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate after full hearings in Washington DC:

He is now a Federal Judge in the Portland OR area. Subsequently he sent me an eMail with the following message:

“I am now a Federal Judge in Portland so, unless I am on the bench, I can talk.”

(these exchanges appear to have taken place in 2009-FOUR YEARS after Dan Bernath left working with Dan Hyatt but still Dan Hyatt perjuries himself by stating that Dan Bernath was in his office years after Bernath could not possibly been in his office.)

[1] Rule 608. Evidence of Character and Conduct of Witness (a) Opinion and reputation evidence of character. The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations: (1) the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness