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

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, 2011
David Markowitz
Lisa Kaner
Markowitz, Herbold, Glade & Mehlhaf PC
3000 Pacwest Center, 1211 SW Fifth Ave
Portland OR 97204-3730
Re: Mark Long
Dear Mr. Markowitz and Ms. Kaner:
As you know, we represent Mark Long in connection with claims that he intends to assert
against the State of Oregon, Attorney General John Kroger, Assistant Attorney General Sean
Riddell, and perhaps others arising from the Department of Justice Investigation of the Energy
Assurance Plan (EAP)grant. In preparation for mediation scheduled for November 18, 2011, we
provide this information to apprise you of the claims and damages we intend to seek in this
case. Based on what we know to date, we will prove the following:
Mark Long has been an exemplary public servant, with an unblemished record of
outstanding performance for more than 22 years. He was first hired as a building inspector at
the 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 agency
through positions of increasing responsibility. In 2002, he was appointed Director of Building
Code Enforcement, a position he held through mid-2009. Throughout his career, Mr. Long
earned a reputation as a respected and trusted public servant who received high marks from his
supervisors, the governor, and the development community for his work at DCBS. He received
consistently excellent performance reviews/ numerous commendations, and regular promotions.
He is highly respected by many different constituencies: Democrats and Republicans; public
employee and trade unions; and diverse business interests.
Over time, Mr. Long became one of the qovernor's "go toft people when problems
needed fixing. In May, 2009, Governor Kulongoski requested/ and Mr. Long agreed to take on a
six-month assignment as Director of the Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE) to clean up the
agency. This was not the first special assignment plaintiff had accepted at the request of the
governor.
After spending several weeks working to repair ODOE's tarnished reputation with
legislators 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. November 7,2011
Page 2
the job of cleaning up ODOE directly. Mr. Long personally observed at the agency a severe lack
of accountability and professional responsibility, inadequate management and budget control
systems, failures to follow state and agency rules and regulations, widespread manipulation of
tax credit rules, self-dealing among employees, and a troublingly crude and unstructured agency
culture.
In the summer and fall of 2009, Mr. Long and Deputy Director Joan Fraser overhauled
the agency, replacing more than half of ODOE's management. Mr. Long reined in employees'
unrestricted access to public money and their ability individually to issue tax credits (sometimes
to themselves and to family). He put a stop to the manipulation and end-running of rules
regarding Business Energy Tax Credits (SETC). He progressively put systems in place to create
order in what had been a disorganized and unprofessional work environment. Then, at the end
of Mr. Long's six-month rotation, he was asked by the governor to remain for an additional six
months. Mr. Long spent most of that second rotation overhauling the SETCprogram and
rewriting the administrative rules that governed its operation, turning a manipulated and fiscally
unsustainable program into a successful and financially responsible way to promote energy
conservation.
In May 2009, Governor Kulongoski and DCBSDirector Cory Streisinger urged Mr. Long to
accept a third job rotation, this time as Deputy Director of DeBS. At the time, Ms. Streisinger
stated to the governor that Mr. Long had shown "proven leadership skills, expertise and
dedication 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 she
retired at the end of 2010. Mr. Long accepted the appointment, moving from ODOE to DCBSin
May 2010.
The circumstances surrounding the EAPgrant, the subject of DOJ's criminal investigation,
began a year earlier -- approximately a month prior to Mr. Long's arrival at ODOE. At that time,
Tom Barquinero and Cylvia Hayes, two of four partners comprising the environmental consulting
firm TEEM,Inc., sent an unsolicited proposal to ODOE.proposing to inventory and assess
Oregon's renewable energy assets. Diana Enright an ODOE renewable energy official,
responded positively to TEEM's proposal, but explained that the state had no funding for such a
project.
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 of
which was to fund jobs through the development of state-based energy assurance plans aimed
at mitigating the impact of energy disruptions. Oregon's share, for which the state had to apply
to USDOE,was roughly $547,000. Becausethe EAPinitiative was aimed at many of the same
objectives TEEM proposed to accomplish, Ms. Enright, without Mr. Long's knowledge or
Exhibit A
Page 2 of 11

3. November 7, 2011
Page 3
approval, informed TEEMthat their proposal could possibly be funded as part of the EAP
program.
Mr. Long did not want to participate in the EAPprogram. In a typical year, ODOE
administered around $500,000 in federal grants; in contrast, through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA),ODOE had already been awarded $42 million in federal
energy research and development funds by the time Mr. Long arrived at the agency, and would
receive an additional $13.5 million in the following months. The volume of federal grant money
to be administered by ODOE had thus increased more than 100-fold in a single year, with no
significant increase in staff to implement the projects those funds would support. ODOE was
overwhelmed. Mr. Long concluded that applying for and administering the EAPgrant would
require a great deal of staff time and agency resources at a time when the work of responsibly
administering the existing $55 million in ARRAfunds was already overburdening the agency. He
decided ODOE would not apply.
Immediately, Mr. Long received several communications encouraging him to change his
mind. The Public Utility Commission (PUC)wanted to use some of the funds for its own energy
work, but could not apply directly. Brian Shipley, the Governor's Deputy Chief of Staff, informed
Mr. Long that not applying would be contrary to the governor's stated policy to accept all
available 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 on
USDOE's willingness to allow ODOE to change the scope of work and to administer the work
through both PUCand a private contractor in order to lessen the burden on ODOE, Mr. Long
agreed.
On the advice of the ODOE procurement office, it was determined that the private
contractor would be determined through a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP)process. As
the RFPdescribed, ODOE sought a study to help it better understand how Oregon's existing
renewable energy sources could help improve the state's response to emergencies by providing
local power where conventional sources might be disrupted. The work was to be completed for
no more than $200,000. Four environmental consulting firms, including TEEM, submitted
proposals. 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 by
an 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 expected
cost of $186,500.
Mr. Long was concerned about sending Oregon's share of the EAPgrant out of state,
when ARRA funds were intended to help stimulate the state's economy by creating local jobs
and 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. I I
November 7,2011
Page 4
there were options under the terms of the grant and the RFPto include an Oregon company in
the work. At the time, Mr. Long was not aware that TEEMwas the only Oregon-based company
among the four that submitted proposals, and he did not instruct anyone at ODOE specifically
to have TEEM involved in the contract.
Consistent with Oregon's public contracting laws and the RFPitself, ODOE suggested to
RW 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 renewable
energy providers in Oregon than any other proposer, which would improve the accuracy of the
data collection involved. ODOE did not require that RW Beck subcontract any part of its
contract to TEEM, nor did ODOE condition RW Beck's 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 TEEM'slocal strengths, and took ODOE's
suggestion to subcontract part of its data collection work to TEEM. ODOE played no role in
suggesting or determining what compensation TEEMwould receive under that collaborative
arrangement. Discussions between RW Beck and TEEMled the firms to conclude that the
balance of RW Beck's work - without the data-collection they initially proposed to do, but with
the overhead associated with managing a subcontractor - would total $140,000, while TEEM's
outreach-based data collection would cost $60,000. The resulting total cost of $200,000 did not
exceed the ceiling ODOE had imposed for the project in its original RFP. On June 16, 2010, a
month after Mr. Long had left ODOE, the EAPcontract was signed by RW Beck's management
and by ODOE Contracts Coordinator Lorena Wise. The contract was executed only between the
State of Oregon and RW Beck. ODOE did not contract with TEEM.In the end, RW Beck
concluded that the state received a better product as.a result of TEEM's involvement.
In August 2010, Sean Riddell, Chief Counsel of the Criminal Justice Division of the
Department of Justice (CJD),initiated a criminal investigation into ODOE's contracting practices
related to the EAPcontract. That criminal investigation was founded upon the theory that Mark
Long and his colleagues illegally funneled public funds to TEEM principal Cylvia Hayes by forcing
RW 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 Joan
Fraser,Paul Seesing, and Shelli Honeywell were immediately placed on administrative leave
pending completion of that investigation.
Throughout the course of a five-month long investigation that involved nearly two dozen
witnesses, produced nearly a million documents, and resulted in a bill to the taxpayers of several
hundred thousand dollars, Mr. Riddell's investigation found no evidence of any criminal
wrongdoing -- for the simple reason that no illegal conduct occurred.
Exhibit A
Page 4 of l l

5. November 7, 2011
Page 5
Mr. Kroger and Mr. Riddell, fearful of emerging from yet another criminal investigation
empty-handed, dug in their heels. Mr. Riddell resorted to berating, coercing, intimidating, and
repeatedly lying to witnesses in order to deceive them into making statements that supported
DOJ's theory.
For instance, Mr. Riddell and two Special Agents of the Department of Justice
interviewed several RW Beck managers, repeatedly asking them whether ODOE had ordered or
required RW Beck to subcontract with TEEM. RW Beck's managers consistently, clearly, and
unequivocally answered that question, "no." Nevertheless, Mr. Riddell then proceeded in an
interview with ODOE Deputy Director Joan Fraserto flatly misrepresent that testimony. Among
other misrepresentations, Mr. Riddell and his Special Agents falsely told Ms. Fraser that RW
Beck's managers, on tape and with their attorneys present, claimed to have been ordered or
required by ODOE to engage TEEMas a subcontractor.
Similarly, in CJO'sinterview with then-Governor Kulongoski's Deputy Chief of Staff Brian
Shipley, in an effort to elicit incriminating testimony Riddell falsely told Mr. Shipley as a matter
of unqualified fact that Mr. Long had violated more than 15 Oregon regulations in order to
funnel public funds to Ms. Hayes. In truth, Riddell had no basis to conclude Mr. Long had
committed any crime or violated any regulation. In an even more deeply unsettling display of
overzealousness, Riddell resorted to berating, threatening, and lying to Shelli Honeywell to elicit
the testimony he wanted to hear.
At that point, DOJ had not contacted Mr. Long concerning its criminal investigation. Mr.
Long's attorneys, concerned that Mr. Long may have become a subject of that investigation, met
with Mr. Riddell in November 2010. When asked, Mr. Riddell refused to identify any alleged
misconduct under investigation, but said he would eventually ask Mr. Long to tell "his side of
the story." Mr. Long's attorneys noted their concern that Mr. Long could not "tell his side of the
story" unless he was informed as to what allegations were at issue. Mr. Riddell responded that
he "liked it that way" and refused to discuss the nature or subject of his investigation or his
concerns about Mr. Long's conduct. He further voiced the opinion that being subjected to such
criminal investigation is an inevitable part of working as a public servant. Mr. Long's attorneys
explained they were aware of no illegal conduct on Mr. Long's part and were aware of no basis
even to begin an investigation. They further noted their concern that a criminal investigation
can, in itself, do significant damage to a person's career and reputation. Mr. Riddell responded
forthrightly that he did not care.
On November 16, 2010, Mr. Riddell caused a subpoena to be issued in the name of the
Oregon Attorney General under the authority of ORS80.073. That same afternoon, agents of
the Attorney General served that subpoena on Cory Streisinger, Director of DCBS,at Mr. Long's
workplace. 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. November 7,2011
Page 6
computers issued to Mr. Long. Although the subpoena bore a response date of "December 17,
2010, no later than 3:00 p.m.," the Attorney General's agents wrongly treated the subpoena as a
search warrant. Without notice to Mr. Long and in the presence of his co-workers, agents of the
Attorney General immediately and illegally seized Mr. Long's work computer, along with all
electronically 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 what
crimes DOJ suspected Mr. Long of having committed, or what questions or subjects they wished
to have Mr. Long address, Mr. Riddell again refused to answer. When asked what the ground
rules 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 willing
to cooperate and that he could provide substantial information about what had happened at
ODOE before and during his rotation as Director, but that under the circumstances and in light
of the troubling and likely illegal ways in which DO] had handled its investigation thus far, I
could not recommend to Mr. long that he submit to an unstructured and unconditional
interrogation. 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 him
that eJD had completed its criminal inquiry into ODOE's award of the EAPcontract, and that no
charges would be filed. Although Mr. Riddell's letter did not discuss any other employee by
name, the letter specifically noted that Mark Long refused to be interviewed. Mr. Riddell's letter
was 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 on
administrative leave and investigated for improper conduct. Mr. long was immediately placed
on leave and expressly required to remain at his home between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00
pm. Mr. Long was further ordered not to communicate with anyone regarding the Department
of Energy matter. For the indefinite future, Mr. Long was effectively placed under house arrest
and silenced from speaking about matters of public concern. Attorney General Kroger then sent
a letter to Governor Kulongoski formally recommending that Mr. Long be fired.
The following week, Governor Kulongoski asked Attorney General Kroger to allow the
governor to retain independent counsel (rather than attorneys at the DOJ) to review the events
surrounding the EAPcontracting process for purposes of employment action, due to the
Attorney General's evident conflict of interest. Attorney General Kroger refused.
On January 6, 2011, Mr. Long's attorneys received a letter from Scott Harra, then-Acting
Deputy Director of DeBS, enclosing eight DVDs of documents purportedly comprising DOJ's
criminal investigation file. Mr. Harra's letter stated that DOJ intended to release that file to the
Exhibit A
Page 6 of 11

7. November 7, 2011
Page7
media but that, before that release, DeBS would offer Mr. Long an opportunity to comment on
the investigation. The letter stated that, unless Mr. Long agreed to what it called a "name
clearing 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 with
the same eight DVDs, were sent to legal counsel for Ms. Fraser,Ms. Honeywell, and Paul
Seesing. The next day, at the direction of Governor Kulongoski, retired judge Francisco Yraguen
was hired to conduct an "independent state personnel review process" relating to Mr. Long, Ms.
Fraser, Ms. Honeywell, and Mr. Seesing's conduct with respect to the EAPcontract, with the aim
of making recommendations on employment issues regarding those officials.
Mr. Long's attorneys began what would become a months-long process reviewing the
provided files. The investigation file contained upwards of a million documents amassing over
25 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 were
inaccessible without specialized software.
In the process of that review and through discussions with Judge Yraguen, it became
clear that DO) had provided to the judge, but withheld from Mr. Long and his colleagues the
witness interviews, transcripts, and reports that comprised the heart of DOJ's criminal
investigation. At Judge Yraguen's request, DOJ finally produced to the employees those
additional materials.
It also became clear in reviewing investigation files that the materials DOJ was about to
disclose to the media were riddled with sensitive personal data, including the social security
numbers, home addresses, and personal phone numbers of each of the witnesses involved in
the investigation. The files also included information apparently derived from the illegal search
and seizure of Mr. Long's computer. Mr. Long's attorneys also discovered that a great deal of
the materials had been obtained pursuant to subpoenas issued under ORS 180.073, which DOJ
was expressly prohibited by law from disclosing to anyone without a court order. Despite Mr.
Long's attorneys having repeatedly raised their serious concerns about disclosing such materials
illegally, DO) proceeded to post subpoenaed materials on its website and to disclose
subpoenaed materials to the Oregonian, which, along with other news media, proceeded to
publish news accounts of the investigation.
Weeks later, when it finally became apparent to DOJ that it had indeed disclosed
documents it was legally prohibited from disclosing, DO) scrambled to have the Marion County
Circuit court impose a protective order prohibiting Mr. Long and his colleagues from further
disclosing or discussing those documents. The court granted DOl's motion, effectively
prohibiting Mr. Long from defending himself, publicly rebutting DOJ's defamatory statements or
discussing the illegal conduct to which he had been subjected -- further exacerbating his
reputational harm. Meanwhile, the Oregonian, the Willamette Week, and other news outlets
Exhibit A
Page 7 of 11

8. November 7, 2011
Page 8
continued to publish accounts of DOJ's investigation, including its conclusion that Mr. Long
should be fired.
Judge Yraguen's report, issued in March 2011, made apparent that he had done little
more than parrot DOJ's conclusions. Judge Yraguen did not meet with Mr. Long until after he
had prepared his report, including his conclusions. At the beginning of his interview of Mr. Long
he forthrightly told him that nothing Mr. Long said in the interview would affect Judge Yraguen's
report except, perhaps, with respect to "nuance." The agencies that employed the individuals
under investigation apparently - and understandably - refused to take action until a truly
independent review had been conducted. At those agencies' request, private attorneys Paula
Barran and Ed Harnden conducted a lengthy and comprehensive review of the events
surrounding ODOE's EAPcontract and of DOJ's criminal investigation. Their exhaustive report
concluded, in brief, that Mr. Long had done nothing to warrant discipline of any kind; that the
DOJ's investigation was "controversial" and raised concerns, noting that certain of Mr. Riddell's
statements were "particularly troublesome"; that the state's adverse employment actions and
leaks of information to the press likely implicated Mr. Long's and his colleagues' liberty interests
for purposes of civil rights actions; and that, overall, legal action by those employees against the
state was "a near certainty."
In early 2011, two bar complaints were filed independently concerning Mr. Riddell's
illegal and unethical conduct in this case. The Oregon State Bar's Counsel Assistance Office
determined that, on both complaints, there was sufficient evidence to support a reasonable
belief that misconduct may have occurred. The matter was elevated for further consideration by
the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, where Mr. Riddell's conduct remains under review.
Soon after, Attorney General Kroger disclosed that Mr. Riddell had secretly been deleting
ernails pertaining to the ODOE investigation, ernails which might have revealed further
investigatory and prosecutorial misconduct or might have further exonerated Mr. Long. Given
Mr. Kroger's explanation that the emails were "deleted permanently," that will likely never be
known. In June, Mr. Riddell was removed from his position as Chief Counsel of the CJD but
allowed to remain in the employment of DOJ. To date, it appears that the state has not taken
any action to try to recover the deleted emails. Our request that the Attorney General authorize
an independent investigation into the circumstances of the deleted ernails has gone
unanswered.
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 state's
criminal and administrative investigations, both of which exonerated him. He continues to incur
attorney 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 was
never promoted to DCBSdirector as planned, resulting in lost earning capacity of $663,000 as
Exhibit A
Page 8 of 11

9. November 7, 2011
Page 9
well as $339,000 in lost future PERSbenefits. He has also suffered substantial harm to his
reputation and considerable emotional distress valued at approximately $1 million. We estimate
his total compensatory damages to date to be approximately $2.5 million. Under applicable
enhanced damages and punitive damages provisions, Mr. Long will be entitled to recover
several 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. Long's administrative leave, the Department of Justice,
through Mr. Riddell and Mr. Kroger, violated Mr. Long's 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. Long's 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 DOJ's
criminal investigation, and the AG's 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. Long's 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. Long's 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. November 7, 2011
Page 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 CJD'stracks 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 General's 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. Kroger's 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. November 7, 2011
Page 11
To settle this matter at this juncture, Mr. Long demands payment of $2.5 million structured to
minimize the tax consequences to him, and an agreement that he cannot be removed from his
position as Director of Building Code Enforcement for any reason without just cause.
WFG:jal
00345348.DOC;2
Exhibit A
Page 11 of 11