Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

Oregon dept of justice tactics

2 613 vues

Publié le

Outline of the case of Mark Long vs. John Kroger, Sean Riddle and the Oregon Dept of Justice (this document is public record) Most of the case is currently sealed pending the Federal Court Case. John Kroger learned from the bad guys and adopted their MO and taught people like Riddle and John Dunbar what to do. They are above the law and will do anything to further their careers at the expense of due process and what is right or wrong. Just my experience.

Update: The State of Oregon settled the case for $1,000,000

Publié dans : Actualités & Politique
  • Soyez le premier à commenter

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Oregon dept of justice tactics

  1. 1. HARRANG LONG WILUAM F. GARY GARY RUDNICK P.C. Admitted in Oregon and California 360 East 10th Avenue, Suite 300 AiTORNEYS Ai LAW Eugene, OR 97401-3273 william.f.gary@harrang.com 541.485.0220 541.686.6564 (fax)November 7, 2011David MarkowitzLisa KanerMarkowitz, Herbold, Glade & Mehlhaf PC3000 Pacwest Center, 1211 SW Fifth AvePortland OR 97204-3730 Re: Mark LongDear Mr. Markowitz and Ms. Kaner: As you know, we represent Mark Long in connection with claims that he intends to assertagainst the State of Oregon, Attorney General John Kroger, Assistant Attorney General SeanRiddell, and perhaps others arising from the Department of Justice Investigation of the EnergyAssurance Plan (EAP)grant. In preparation for mediation scheduled for November 18, 2011, weprovide this information to apprise you of the claims and damages we intend to seek in thiscase. Based on what we know to date, we will prove the following: Mark Long has been an exemplary public servant, with an unblemished record ofoutstanding performance for more than 22 years. He was first hired as a building inspector atthe Building Codes Division of the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services(DCBS)in 1988. Over the next two decades, Mr. Long steadily worked his way up in the agencythrough positions of increasing responsibility. In 2002, he was appointed Director of BuildingCode Enforcement, a position he held through mid-2009. Throughout his career, Mr. Longearned a reputation as a respected and trusted public servant who received high marks from hissupervisors, the governor, and the development community for his work at DCBS. He receivedconsistently excellent performance reviews/ numerous commendations, and regular promotions.He is highly respected by many different constituencies: Democrats and Republicans; publicemployee and trade unions; and diverse business interests. Over time, Mr. Long became one of the qovernors "go toft people when problemsneeded fixing. In May, 2009, Governor Kulongoski requested/ and Mr. Long agreed to take on asix-month assignment as Director of the Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE) to clean up theagency. This was not the first special assignment plaintiff had accepted at the request of thegovernor. After spending several weeks working to repair ODOEs tarnished reputation withlegislators and repairing and helping to pass ODOEtsbudget and policy bills, Mr. Long turned to PORTLAND • EUGENE • SALEM HARRANG.COM Exhibit A Page 1 of 11
  2. 2. November 7,2011Page 2the job of cleaning up ODOE directly. Mr. Long personally observed at the agency a severe lackof accountability and professional responsibility, inadequate management and budget controlsystems, failures to follow state and agency rules and regulations, widespread manipulation oftax credit rules, self-dealing among employees, and a troublingly crude and unstructured agencyculture. In the summer and fall of 2009, Mr. Long and Deputy Director Joan Fraser overhauledthe agency, replacing more than half of ODOEs management. Mr. Long reined in employeesunrestricted access to public money and their ability individually to issue tax credits (sometimesto themselves and to family). He put a stop to the manipulation and end-running of rulesregarding Business Energy Tax Credits (SETC). He progressively put systems in place to createorder in what had been a disorganized and unprofessional work environment. Then, at the endof Mr. Longs six-month rotation, he was asked by the governor to remain for an additional sixmonths. Mr. Long spent most of that second rotation overhauling the SETCprogram andrewriting the administrative rules that governed its operation, turning a manipulated and fiscallyunsustainable program into a successful and financially responsible way to promote energyconservation. In May 2009, Governor Kulongoski and DCBSDirector Cory Streisinger urged Mr. Long toaccept a third job rotation, this time as Deputy Director of DeBS. At the time, Ms. Streisingerstated to the governor that Mr. Long had shown "proven leadership skills, expertise anddedication to our mission of protecting consumers while supporting a positive business climate."Ms. Streisinger informed Mr. Long that he was in line to replace her as DCBS Director when sheretired at the end of 2010. Mr. Long accepted the appointment, moving from ODOE to DCBSinMay 2010. The circumstances surrounding the EAPgrant, the subject of DOJs criminal investigation,began a year earlier -- approximately a month prior to Mr. Longs arrival at ODOE. At that time,Tom Barquinero and Cylvia Hayes, two of four partners comprising the environmental consultingfirm TEEM,Inc., sent an unsolicited proposal to ODOE.proposing to inventory and assessOregons renewable energy assets. Diana Enright an ODOE renewable energy official,responded positively to TEEMs proposal, but explained that the state had no funding for such aproject. Soon after, Ms. Enright learned that the United States Department of Energy (USDOE)was making available a grant program entitled the Energy Assurance Plan, a primary goal ofwhich was to fund jobs through the development of state-based energy assurance plans aimedat mitigating the impact of energy disruptions. Oregons share, for which the state had to applyto USDOE,was roughly $547,000. Becausethe EAPinitiative was aimed at many of the sameobjectives TEEM proposed to accomplish, Ms. Enright, without Mr. Longs knowledge or Exhibit A Page 2 of 11
  3. 3. November 7, 2011Page 3approval, informed TEEMthat their proposal could possibly be funded as part of the EAPprogram. Mr. Long did not want to participate in the EAPprogram. In a typical year, ODOEadministered around $500,000 in federal grants; in contrast, through the American Recovery andReinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA),ODOE had already been awarded $42 million in federalenergy research and development funds by the time Mr. Long arrived at the agency, and wouldreceive an additional $13.5 million in the following months. The volume of federal grant moneyto be administered by ODOE had thus increased more than 100-fold in a single year, with nosignificant increase in staff to implement the projects those funds would support. ODOE wasoverwhelmed. Mr. Long concluded that applying for and administering the EAPgrant wouldrequire a great deal of staff time and agency resources at a time when the work of responsiblyadministering the existing $55 million in ARRAfunds was already overburdening the agency. Hedecided ODOE would not apply. Immediately, Mr. Long received several communications encouraging him to change hismind. The Public Utility Commission (PUC)wanted to use some of the funds for its own energywork, but could not apply directly. Brian Shipley, the Governors Deputy Chief of Staff, informedMr. Long that not applying would be contrary to the governors stated policy to accept allavailable stimulus funds. And a USDOEofficial strongly encouraged ODOE to participate,informing them that Oregon was one of only two states that had not applied. Based in part onUSDOEs willingness to allow ODOE to change the scope of work and to administer the workthrough both PUCand a private contractor in order to lessen the burden on ODOE, Mr. Longagreed. On the advice of the ODOE procurement office, it was determined that the privatecontractor would be determined through a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP)process. Asthe RFPdescribed, ODOE sought a study to help it better understand how Oregons existingrenewable energy sources could help improve the states response to emergencies by providinglocal power where conventional sources might be disrupted. The work was to be completed forno more than $200,000. Four environmental consulting firms, including TEEM, submittedproposals. Of the four, TEEMwas the only Oregon-based company that submitted a proposal;the remaining three were out-of-state companies. The proposals were reviewed and ranked byan ODOE evaluation committee in April 2010. The proposal ranked highest was that of RW Beck,Inc., a multinational energy consulting company based in California. It proposed an expectedcost of $186,500. Mr. Long was concerned about sending Oregons share of the EAPgrant out of state,when ARRA funds were intended to help stimulate the states economy by creating local jobsand supporting Oregon businesses. Several other ODOE officials agreed. For those reasons, Mr.Long instructed ODOE ARRA manager Shelli Honeywell and Ms. Fraser to determine whether Exhibit A Page 3 of 11
  4. 4. I INovember 7,2011Page 4there were options under the terms of the grant and the RFPto include an Oregon company inthe work. At the time, Mr. Long was not aware that TEEMwas the only Oregon-based companyamong the four that submitted proposals, and he did not instruct anyone at ODOE specificallyto have TEEM involved in the contract. Consistent with Oregons public contracting laws and the RFPitself, ODOE suggested toRW Beck the possibility of subcontracting the data collection portion of the EAPwork to TEEM.In addition to benefiting local business, TEEMwas more closely familiar with the local renewableenergy providers in Oregon than any other proposer, which would improve the accuracy of thedata collection involved. ODOE did not require that RW Beck subcontract any part of itscontract to TEEM, nor did ODOE condition RW Becks award on its willingness to do so. It merely made the suggestion, and ultimately left the decision to RW Beck. RW Beck agreed with ODOE regarding TEEMslocal strengths, and took ODOEssuggestion to subcontract part of its data collection work to TEEM. ODOE played no role insuggesting or determining what compensation TEEMwould receive under that collaborativearrangement. Discussions between RW Beck and TEEMled the firms to conclude that thebalance of RW Becks work - without the data-collection they initially proposed to do, but withthe overhead associated with managing a subcontractor - would total $140,000, while TEEMsoutreach-based data collection would cost $60,000. The resulting total cost of $200,000 did notexceed the ceiling ODOE had imposed for the project in its original RFP. On June 16, 2010, amonth after Mr. Long had left ODOE, the EAPcontract was signed by RW Becks managementand by ODOE Contracts Coordinator Lorena Wise. The contract was executed only between theState of Oregon and RW Beck. ODOE did not contract with TEEM.In the end, RW Beckconcluded that the state received a better product as.a result of TEEMs involvement. In August 2010, Sean Riddell, Chief Counsel of the Criminal Justice Division of theDepartment of Justice (CJD),initiated a criminal investigation into ODOEs contracting practicesrelated to the EAPcontract. That criminal investigation was founded upon the theory that MarkLong and his colleagues illegally funneled public funds to TEEM principal Cylvia Hayes by forcingRW Beck to subcontract part of its work to TEEM,for the purpose of currying favor with then-gubernatorial candidate John Kitzhaber, the domestic partner of Ms. Hayes. ODOE officials JoanFraser,Paul Seesing, and Shelli Honeywell were immediately placed on administrative leavepending completion of that investigation. Throughout the course of a five-month long investigation that involved nearly two dozenwitnesses, produced nearly a million documents, and resulted in a bill to the taxpayers of severalhundred thousand dollars, Mr. Riddells investigation found no evidence of any criminalwrongdoing -- for the simple reason that no illegal conduct occurred. Exhibit A Page 4 of l l
  5. 5. November 7, 2011Page 5 Mr. Kroger and Mr. Riddell, fearful of emerging from yet another criminal investigationempty-handed, dug in their heels. Mr. Riddell resorted to berating, coercing, intimidating, andrepeatedly lying to witnesses in order to deceive them into making statements that supportedDOJs theory. For instance, Mr. Riddell and two Special Agents of the Department of Justiceinterviewed several RW Beck managers, repeatedly asking them whether ODOE had ordered orrequired RW Beck to subcontract with TEEM. RW Becks managers consistently, clearly, andunequivocally answered that question, "no." Nevertheless, Mr. Riddell then proceeded in aninterview with ODOE Deputy Director Joan Fraserto flatly misrepresent that testimony. Amongother misrepresentations, Mr. Riddell and his Special Agents falsely told Ms. Fraser that RWBecks managers, on tape and with their attorneys present, claimed to have been ordered orrequired by ODOE to engage TEEMas a subcontractor. Similarly, in CJOsinterview with then-Governor Kulongoskis Deputy Chief of Staff BrianShipley, in an effort to elicit incriminating testimony Riddell falsely told Mr. Shipley as a matterof unqualified fact that Mr. Long had violated more than 15 Oregon regulations in order tofunnel public funds to Ms. Hayes. In truth, Riddell had no basis to conclude Mr. Long hadcommitted any crime or violated any regulation. In an even more deeply unsettling display ofoverzealousness, Riddell resorted to berating, threatening, and lying to Shelli Honeywell to elicitthe testimony he wanted to hear. At that point, DOJ had not contacted Mr. Long concerning its criminal investigation. Mr.Longs attorneys, concerned that Mr. Long may have become a subject of that investigation, metwith Mr. Riddell in November 2010. When asked, Mr. Riddell refused to identify any allegedmisconduct under investigation, but said he would eventually ask Mr. Long to tell "his side ofthe story." Mr. Longs attorneys noted their concern that Mr. Long could not "tell his side of thestory" unless he was informed as to what allegations were at issue. Mr. Riddell responded thathe "liked it that way" and refused to discuss the nature or subject of his investigation or hisconcerns about Mr. Longs conduct. He further voiced the opinion that being subjected to suchcriminal investigation is an inevitable part of working as a public servant. Mr. Longs attorneysexplained they were aware of no illegal conduct on Mr. Longs part and were aware of no basiseven to begin an investigation. They further noted their concern that a criminal investigationcan, in itself, do significant damage to a persons career and reputation. Mr. Riddell respondedforthrightly that he did not care. On November 16, 2010, Mr. Riddell caused a subpoena to be issued in the name of theOregon Attorney General under the authority of ORS80.073. That same afternoon, agents ofthe Attorney General served that subpoena on Cory Streisinger, Director of DCBS,at Mr. Longsworkplace. The subpoena demanded the production of all a-malls sent to or received by Mr.Long from May 24, 2010 to the present and demanded production of all state-owned Exhibit A Page 5 of 11
  6. 6. November 7,2011Page 6computers issued to Mr. Long. Although the subpoena bore a response date of "December 17,2010, no later than 3:00 p.m.," the Attorney Generals agents wrongly treated the subpoena as asearch warrant. Without notice to Mr. Long and in the presence of his co-workers, agents of theAttorney General immediately and illegally seized Mr. Longs work computer, along with allelectronically stored information thereon. In a telephone conversation on December 13, 2010, Mr. Riddell asked me to make Mr.Long available to be interviewed by Mr. Riddell and two DOJ Special Agents. When asked whatcrimes DOJ suspected Mr. Long of having committed, or what questions or subjects they wishedto have Mr. Long address, Mr. Riddell again refused to answer. When asked what the groundrules would be for such a meeting, Mr. Riddell stated only that he would ask Mr. Long questions,and Mr. Long would answer them. I communicated to Mr. Riddell that Mr. Long was fully willingto cooperate and that he could provide substantial information about what had happened atODOE before and during his rotation as Director, but that under the circumstances and in lightof the troubling and likely illegal ways in which DO] had handled its investigation thus far, Icould not recommend to Mr. long that he submit to an unstructured and unconditionalinterrogation. Riddell then said that Mr. Long was "refusing to cooperate" and that he would"document" such refusal accordingly. On December 29, 2010, Mr. Riddell sent a letter to Governor Kulongoski notifying himthat eJD had completed its criminal inquiry into ODOEs award of the EAPcontract, and that nocharges would be filed. Although Mr. Riddells letter did not discuss any other employee byname, the letter specifically noted that Mark Long refused to be interviewed. Mr. Riddells letterwas released to the media on the same day it was delivered. That same day, Mr. Riddell recommended to Ms. Streisinger that Mr. Long be placed onadministrative leave and investigated for improper conduct. Mr. long was immediately placedon leave and expressly required to remain at his home between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00pm. Mr. Long was further ordered not to communicate with anyone regarding the Departmentof Energy matter. For the indefinite future, Mr. Long was effectively placed under house arrestand silenced from speaking about matters of public concern. Attorney General Kroger then senta letter to Governor Kulongoski formally recommending that Mr. Long be fired. The following week, Governor Kulongoski asked Attorney General Kroger to allow thegovernor to retain independent counsel (rather than attorneys at the DOJ) to review the eventssurrounding the EAPcontracting process for purposes of employment action, due to theAttorney Generals evident conflict of interest. Attorney General Kroger refused. On January 6, 2011, Mr. Longs attorneys received a letter from Scott Harra, then-ActingDeputy Director of DeBS, enclosing eight DVDs of documents purportedly comprising DOJscriminal investigation file. Mr. Harras letter stated that DOJ intended to release that file to the Exhibit A Page 6 of 11
  7. 7. November 7, 2011Page7media but that, before that release, DeBS would offer Mr. Long an opportunity to comment onthe investigation. The letter stated that, unless Mr. Long agreed to what it called a "nameclearing hearing" (but which was, in fact, no more than the use of a microphone for 60 minutes),the materials would be disclosed to the media the following week. Similar letters, together withthe same eight DVDs, were sent to legal counsel for Ms. Fraser,Ms. Honeywell, and PaulSeesing. The next day, at the direction of Governor Kulongoski, retired judge Francisco Yraguenwas hired to conduct an "independent state personnel review process" relating to Mr. Long, Ms. Fraser, Ms. Honeywell, and Mr. Seesings conduct with respect to the EAPcontract, with the aim of making recommendations on employment issues regarding those officials. Mr. Longs attorneys began what would become a months-long process reviewing theprovided files. The investigation file contained upwards of a million documents amassing over25 gigabytes of data, was entirely disorganized, contained no indices, analyses, or tables of .contents, and was provided in various and inconsistent formats, many of which wereinaccessible without specialized software. In the process of that review and through discussions with Judge Yraguen, it becameclear that DO) had provided to the judge, but withheld from Mr. Long and his colleagues thewitness interviews, transcripts, and reports that comprised the heart of DOJs criminalinvestigation. At Judge Yraguens request, DOJ finally produced to the employees thoseadditional materials. It also became clear in reviewing investigation files that the materials DOJ was about todisclose to the media were riddled with sensitive personal data, including the social securitynumbers, home addresses, and personal phone numbers of each of the witnesses involved inthe investigation. The files also included information apparently derived from the illegal searchand seizure of Mr. Longs computer. Mr. Longs attorneys also discovered that a great deal ofthe materials had been obtained pursuant to subpoenas issued under ORS 180.073, which DOJwas expressly prohibited by law from disclosing to anyone without a court order. Despite Mr.Longs attorneys having repeatedly raised their serious concerns about disclosing such materialsillegally, DO) proceeded to post subpoenaed materials on its website and to disclosesubpoenaed materials to the Oregonian, which, along with other news media, proceeded topublish news accounts of the investigation. Weeks later, when it finally became apparent to DOJ that it had indeed discloseddocuments it was legally prohibited from disclosing, DO) scrambled to have the Marion CountyCircuit court impose a protective order prohibiting Mr. Long and his colleagues from furtherdisclosing or discussing those documents. The court granted DOls motion, effectivelyprohibiting Mr. Long from defending himself, publicly rebutting DOJs defamatory statements ordiscussing the illegal conduct to which he had been subjected -- further exacerbating hisreputational harm. Meanwhile, the Oregonian, the Willamette Week, and other news outlets Exhibit A Page 7 of 11
  8. 8. November 7, 2011Page 8continued to publish accounts of DOJs investigation, including its conclusion that Mr. Longshould be fired. Judge Yraguens report, issued in March 2011, made apparent that he had done littlemore than parrot DOJs conclusions. Judge Yraguen did not meet with Mr. Long until after hehad prepared his report, including his conclusions. At the beginning of his interview of Mr. Longhe forthrightly told him that nothing Mr. Long said in the interview would affect Judge Yraguensreport except, perhaps, with respect to "nuance." The agencies that employed the individualsunder investigation apparently - and understandably - refused to take action until a trulyindependent review had been conducted. At those agencies request, private attorneys PaulaBarran and Ed Harnden conducted a lengthy and comprehensive review of the eventssurrounding ODOEs EAPcontract and of DOJs criminal investigation. Their exhaustive reportconcluded, in brief, that Mr. Long had done nothing to warrant discipline of any kind; that theDOJs investigation was "controversial" and raised concerns, noting that certain of Mr. Riddellsstatements were "particularly troublesome"; that the states adverse employment actions andleaks of information to the press likely implicated Mr. Longs and his colleagues liberty interestsfor purposes of civil rights actions; and that, overall, legal action by those employees against thestate was "a near certainty." In early 2011, two bar complaints were filed independently concerning Mr. Riddellsillegal and unethical conduct in this case. The Oregon State Bars Counsel Assistance Officedetermined that, on both complaints, there was sufficient evidence to support a reasonablebelief that misconduct may have occurred. The matter was elevated for further consideration bythe Office of Disciplinary Counsel, where Mr. Riddells conduct remains under review. Soon after, Attorney General Kroger disclosed that Mr. Riddell had secretly been deletingernails pertaining to the ODOE investigation, ernails which might have revealed furtherinvestigatory and prosecutorial misconduct or might have further exonerated Mr. Long. GivenMr. Krogers explanation that the emails were "deleted permanently," that will likely never beknown. In June, Mr. Riddell was removed from his position as Chief Counsel of the CJD butallowed to remain in the employment of DOJ. To date, it appears that the state has not takenany action to try to recover the deleted emails. Our request that the Attorney General authorizean independent investigation into the circumstances of the deleted ernails has goneunanswered. As a result of the above-described actions, Mark Long has suffered extensive damages.He incurred approximately $450,000 in attorney fees in defending himself against the statescriminal and administrative investigations, both of which exonerated him. He continues to incurattorney fees related to the prosecution of his tort claim, which amount to approximately$25,000 as of the date of this letter. As a result of DO)s botched investigation, Mr. Long wasnever promoted to DCBSdirector as planned, resulting in lost earning capacity of $663,000 as Exhibit A Page 8 of 11
  9. 9. November 7, 2011Page 9well as $339,000 in lost future PERSbenefits. He has also suffered substantial harm to hisreputation and considerable emotional distress valued at approximately $1 million. We estimatehis total compensatory damages to date to be approximately $2.5 million. Under applicableenhanced damages and punitive damages provisions, Mr. Long will be entitled to recoverseveral times that amount. We intend to file a complaint stating the following claims for relief: • Violation of Civil Rights under 42 use §1983. By its illegal prosecution tactics and the onerous terms of Mr. Longs administrative leave, the Department of Justice, through Mr. Riddell and Mr. Kroger, violated Mr. Longs substantive and procedural due process rights, his right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, and his right to free speech regarding matters of public concern. We will seek punitive damages against the individual defendants, as well as attorney fees. • Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and under Art. I, §20 of the Oregon Constitution. Given the serious and widespread violations occurring at ODOE before Long arrived, DOYs having singled Mr. long out for criminal prosecution based on the EAPcontract was arbitrary and capricious at best, and discriminatory at worst. By subjecting Mr. Long to criminal investigation on a discriminatory basis, the state violated Mr. Longs right to equal protection under the law. We will seek punitive damages against the individual defendants, as well as attorney fees. • Defamation. The public dissemination of the accusations underlying the DOJs criminal investigation, and the AGs repeated remarks to the media that Mr. Long ought to be fired for his conduct, constitute statements of the kind that would tend to diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill, or confidence in which he is held by a substantial and respectable majority of the community. Those statements were false and widely published. Mr. Longs reputation was actually harmed thereby. We will seek punitive damages against the individual defendants. • Interference with Contractual and Economic Relations. DOJ,through Mr. Riddell and Attorney General Kroger, interfered with Mr. Longs existing employment relationship with DCBSby (a) recommending to Cory Streisinger that he be removed from his job and placed on administrative leave, (b) falsely telling his de facto supervisor, Brian Shipley, that Mr. Long had violated fifteen different laws and regulations, and (c) recommending to the governor that he be fired from executive service. They acted with improper motive and by improper means. That interference caused Mr. Long not to be awarded the job of DCBSDirector. We will seek punitive damages against the individual defendants. Exhibit A Page 9 of 11
  10. 10. November 7, 2011Page 10 • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. The DOJ,through Mr. Riddell, committed acts that constituted an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct by subjecting Mr. Long to criminal investigation for crimes he did not commit and of which the state had no evidence, by lying to witnesses in an attempt to elicit false testimony against Mr. Long on those charges, and by trying to cover CJDstracks by deleting possibly exculpatory evidence. Those acts were substantially certain to, were intended to, and in fact did, inflict severe mental or emotional distress. We will seek punitive damages against the individual defendants. • Negligence. Attorney General Kroger had a duty not to retain attorneys at the Department of Justice for whom he knew there was a substantial risk of tortious and illegal conduct. Mr. Kroger violated that duty not only by retaining Mr. Riddell, but also by retaining him in the highest position at the Criminal Justice Division, where his acts would be subject to the least scrutiny and oversight, and where Mr. Riddell had an enormous capacity to cause devastating harm to innocent Oregonians. Shortly after Mr. Riddell became Chief Counsel of CJD, Mr. Kroger knew that Mr. Riddell posed a serious danger to Oregonians, yet he made a conscious choice to retain Mr. Riddell as the Attorney Generals chief prosecutor. Attorney General Kroger was also negligent by failing to appropriately supervise Mr. Riddell and the eJD. The harm Mr. Long has suffered is a result of Mr. Krogers negligence in these regards. We will seek punitive damages against Mr. Kroger individually. • Racketeering. John Kroger and Sean Riddell knowingly attempted to induce both Ms. Honeywell and Ms. Fraserto offer false testimony by lying to them about evidence and other witnesses testimony. They further knowingly destroyed or removed public records by deleting emails pertaining to the DOE criminal investigation. Mr. Riddell further knowingly made false sworn statements with respect to the production of materials concerning its investigation. Those acts constituted official misconduct in the first and/or second degrees. Having directly or . indirectly participated in those predicate acts and possibly others, Mr. Kroger and Mr. Riddell engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity as part of the enterprise of the Department of Justice. We will seek both treble damages and punitive damages with regard to this claim, as well as attorney fees. Exhibit A Page 10 of 11
  11. 11. November 7, 2011Page 11To settle this matter at this juncture, Mr. Long demands payment of $2.5 million structured tominimize the tax consequences to him, and an agreement that he cannot be removed from hisposition as Director of Building Code Enforcement for any reason without just cause.WFG:jal00345348.DOC;2 Exhibit A Page 11 of 11