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

Chen's ruling in the Netbula v. Symantec litigation shows his judicial philosohpy. In 2006, Netbula, LLC, a small software company sued Symantec Corporation for copyright infringement. Symantec made numerous misrepresentations to the Court. Even the presiding judge had found that Symantec “mischaracterize[d]” the record. However, when Netbula requested a Court order to force Symantec to correct its court filings, instead of upholding the integrity of the judicial process, Chen denied Netbula's request and ordered Netbula to pay $20,000 to Symantec. The following is but one example of how Chen distorts the record.

On May 15, 2006, Netbula and Symantec held a confidential private meeting. Netbula brought a stack of paper documents, and the parties and attorneys discussed them. At the end of the meeting, Symantec declined to take the Netbula documents. Then, it alleged in a Court filing that “Symantec ┅ provided the materials requested of them... Netbula, on the other hand, did not provide any of the materials requested of them.”

After Symantec refused to correct their misrepresentations, Netbula's lawyer (a young black lady) filed a motion for Rule 11 sanctions. Faced with indisputable evidence, Symantec finally admitted that Netbula did bring some documents to the meeting.

Magistrate Chen heard the motion. After noting Netbula small and its attorney a solo practitioner, he distorted the record and ordered Netbula to pay $20,000.00 to Symantec. Chen wrote: “[Symantec’s] statement was not misleading. Netbula had not produced all the documents requested.”

To justify his ruling in favor of Symantec, Chen writes:
“The factual investigation [Symantec] needed to respond to [Netbula’s] Rule 11 motion on the merits was not a task that could quickly be accomplished. For example, a fair amount of time was reasonably expended [by Symantec] to look into the history of events surrounding the May 15, 2006, settlement meeting┅ the Court concludes that an award of $20,000 [to Symantec] is reasonable.”

In fact, three Symantec attorneys had an email discussion on May 16, 2006 about the documents Netbula brought to the meeting the previous day. Chen awarded Symantec attorneys for making a false statement that was refuted by their own email.

The above is just one example of Chen’s contortionist jurisprudence. For more details, please review misconduct complaint No. 07-89078 filed with the Ninth Circuit. The Netbula v. Symantec case information can be found on the web site http://www.american-justice.org

Chen’s judicial philosohpy raises serious concerns on whether he can be true to the oath of a judge -- to "do equal right to the poor and to the rich."

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

Sincerely,