Taxpayers looking for Judicial Accountability in Montgomery County PA

March 3, 2008
To: The Honorable President Judge Richard Hodgson
Montgomery County Courthouse
Swede and Airy Streets, Norristown, PA 19401-0311

cc: The Honorable Attorney General Tom Corbett
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
16th Floor, Strawberry Square, Harrisburg, PA 17120

From: Concerned Citizens/Residents of Montgomery County PA and
Citizens/Residents of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Other States

Dear President Judge Hodgson,

Most of the undersigned are citizens of Pennsylvania and residents of Montgomery County. We write to Your Honor to register our serious concerns about a legal case in a courtroom in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, of which Your Honor is the President Judge. This case has come to our attention through two recent front-page Investigative Reports of the Philadelphia Inquirer . The courtroom is presided over by Judge Bernard A. Moore. In one of the articles a US Small Business Administration official is quoted as saying, There are issues raised in that [Rohm and Haas vs. Dr. Manhua Mandy Lin] case that have to be looked at .

Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court judges are publicly elected officials and our tax dollars pay for the operation of our County judicial system. As citizens, we expect fairness and integrity from our judicial system, and justice for all citizens, rich or poor, and for all businesses, large or small. As tax payers, we expect our judicial officials to be effective in spending our tax dollars in administering justice to all.

We ask that Your Honor take a good look at this case personally. We ask you to consider the following:

a. How well has Judge Moore served the county and its tax payers in his handling of this endless legal battle?
b. Whether Judge Moores judicial conduct can live up to the publics expectation and trust bestowed upon a man of his position and title.

Below are a few specific issues revealed by the Inquirer reports that we would like to ask Your Honor to consider when addressing our concerns.

1. Rohm & Haas made specific allegation in this lawsuit filed in 2000 that Dr. Lin revealed four trade secrets in a presentation made in 2000, but later Rohm & Haas said in legal filings that it had no written proof of the existence of the four trade secrets. If this case is about revealing trade secrets and the Plaintiff has admitted it has no proof of the trade secrets in question What are the grounds for this case to continue? This case has already lasted 8 years and is consuming our precious tax dollars. The public has a right to demand that tax dollars and public resources not be wasted in frivolous cases where the lack of foundation/merit has been established on the record.

2. As the dubious case proceeded, Rohm & Haas asked Lin and EverNu for all documents, data related to federal grant proposals and Rohm & Haas further sought free access to EverNus future patents on the plastic chemical. Lin proposed having neutral experts evaluate her grant proposal to see if it contained Rohm & Haas trade secrets, but Rohm & Haas refused, saying identifying its trade secrets could take years. Judge Moore ordered Lin to comply [Rohm and Haas demand], but without legal protection for her work, she refused. Eventually, Judge Moore in June 2005 fined Lin and EverNu $100 a day each, which have accumulated to more than $200,000.

If the Inquirer report is true, we feel that Judge Moore is prejudiced and biased against Lin and her company, EverNu, as evidenced by his ordering non-party EverNu, a small competitor of Rohm & Haas, to disclose all its intellectual properties to Rohm & Haas, and his denying of Lins proposal to have neutral experts evaluate her grant proposal against any existing Rohm & Haas trade secrets. Such conduct of Judge Moore to the detriment of nonparty EverNu we believe is clearly intended to fully benefit Rohm & Haas. As the Inquire reported, April 2003, Rohm & Haas shifts focus in [Judge] Moores court to EverNus grant and research, where the public has the concern that judicial conclusions are not based on technical merit but on sizes of companies, as noticed by the SBA official. We feel it would help to restore the public trust of justice and fairness if Your Honor could shed some light on Judge Moores legal basis and authority in this regard.

3. In this case, Lins attorneys claim pervasive fraud by Rohm & Haas and filed with the court a Compendium lists 17 items of False, Fraudulent and Misleading claims made by Rohm & Haas. The public has a right to know what Judge Moore has done to address such alleged pervasive fraud and misconduct in his courtroom, as compared with his obvious and consistent actions favoring Rohm & Haas.

4. It is not common that a party asks a judge to remove himself citing bias. Here, five years into the case, [Dr. Lins lawyer] Hutchison asked Moore to remove himself from the case for bias and Moore denied the request. How does Montgomery County Common Pleas Court hold accountable the judicial conduct of an elected judicial official?

5. The Inquirer reports exposed the refusal of Montgomery County Court Judge Moore to ask for an independent scientific assessment against the conclusion by the federal government DOE that EverNus research is not work obtained by and supported with Rohm & Haas [information] and is different and unrelated to the content and research direction presented in the Rohm & Haas documents. We question the grounds and reasons for Judge Moores refusal seeking an independent scientific assessment by experts, especially the DOE.

6. According to the Inquirer, Rohm & Haas asserted in a court document that the EnergyDepartment was investigating Lin, and Judge Moore repeated that assertion in a court order. However, the Energy Departments legal counsel disclosed that there was no investigation of Lin. If this is true, where are the credibility and accountability of this elected judicial official in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court?

Sincerely,
The Undersigned (see attached list)

i) The two Investigative Reports were published on April 12 & Nov. 13, 2007 respectively and both are still available online via the link http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20071113_New_twist_in_Rohm___Haas_case.html
ii) All of the quotations in this letter are from the two investigative reports by the Philadelphia Inquire.
iii) According to the Inquirer, EverNu Technology, LLC (EverNu), a small Pennsylvania company, is a non-party to the lawsuit (thus no claim was or could have been made against it). In July 2002, EverNu wins a federal [small business] grant from the US Department of Energy (DOE) to develop a new way to manufacture methacrylic acid, a major Rohm & Haas product.