After calculating the fines for 2 aspects of this case, use of 3 fraudulent writings and mail fraud, I get the preliminary amount of $27,150,000 .
11 state and local government officials, 3 funding foundations, the 2 landlords and 1 attorney. According to Federal rules the fraud occurs every month the funds should have been paid, 8 months, 1 count for me, 3 counts for my wife(abuse involving the disabled triples the fine). 1,035 counts of mail fraud. According to the “whistle blower law” by bringing the case ourselves on behalf of the US Government we would receive 1/3 of the fines. The current State of Oregon would lose the right to dole out federal housing funds for 5 years. Just for fun search the State of Oregon Housing employee list for “Stewart” and see how many pop up. Since this whole group qualifies as an “enterprise” and “RICCO” laws would apply, assets procured with tainted funds would be sized. With the “pooled” investment policy of the “Foundation”, ALL their assets would by exposed.

Using the formula of damages=3 times fines, the partial exposure would be
 $108,600,000 .
Sounds a bit excessive but they knew what they were doing.

Congressman Defazio:

I spoke with your Eugene office 4/15/2009 11:56 AM about a problem. I had contacted your office in 2006 at the beginning of this situation. The original complaint was that a “not for profit”, Community Sharing of Cottage Grove, was not providing the required services for a federally funded State housing program, HOME TBA. As a result of our complaint to the State of Oregon Housing and Community Services we were removed from the HOME TBA Program. In the denial of services letter from Nancy Waggoner (attached) the letter did not contain the HUD required notification that we would have access to specific documents, the hearing process, the appeal process, it also mentioned an eviction notice that was based on a false document provided to Dean Kaufman, attorney for the landlord, by Nancy Waggoner Lane County HOME TBA, and a document from our HOME TBA case file, David Flores “Plan for self sufficiency” / work plan. When I requested the David Flores plan from our case file, Lane County attempted to fax me a bogus document that they obtained from the internet. They sent me an email confirming that they sent me this bogus document instead of the document I requested. At that time we were cut off from the rental funds. We were not evicted because the attorney for the landlord came to realize that the eviction notice was based on a false document. The attorney/landlord then offered to charge no further rental payments for the duration of the one year lease period. After the “hearing” by email with Lane County Human Services where they relied on three bogus and fraudulent writings, we had an email hearing with the Lane County Board of County Commissioners. Faye Stewart sits on the Lane County Board of Commissioners and also sits on the Board of Directors of the “not for profit” Community Sharing of Cottage Grove Oregon. They upheld the Lane County Human Services findings, relying on the same bogus documents. Then the landlord started shooting at us 14 times over a two week period with a shotgun. 911 calls, sheriff’s reports and a case was forwarded to the Lane County DA’s office. The DA’s case remained open for 2 years but was never actually prosecuted. Video of one shooting incident can be seen online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQQ4ystsAWo

I have attempted to get documents and emails from Lane County Counsel, Liane Richardson, but was told it would cost thousands of dollars to get these public documents. When I asked her for specific documents she falsely replied by email that she knew that they had already been sent to us and would not resend them.

On March 4, 2009 I faxed this information to the Governor of Oregon’s office. On March, 23, 2009 I received a letter from his office from Katherine Wentzel, Citizens’ Contact Analyst. It was also supposedly “cc Oregon Congressional Delegation”. In the March 23, letter from Katherine Wentzel she states, “Based on the information we obtained, we believe OHCS acted in good faith in addressing your complaints…”. I called K. Wentzel and asked what information they obtained to base their opinion on and to send us copies. She said that “I have worked for years with them.”. If we wanted copies of the information I would need to make a formal request. That formal request is reproduced below. I received a call from “volunteer Larry” at the Governor’s hotline, Wednesday, April 15, 2009 he told me that they were “forwarding the request for documents to OHCS. This seemed odd, if the Governors office had reviewed documents concerning this matter, copies should have been in the Governor’s file. Why would they need to go back to the department they were investigating to get “documents”?

This matter revolves around political protection of a “not for profit” invoicing the US Government for services not rendered, covering up that matter by a Lane County Commissioner that also sits on the board of the “not for profit” that he sub-granted federal housing fund to, a State of Oregon sanctioning the use of fraudulent writings to remove a disabled person from a federally funded housing program, the appearance of complicity by the Governors office, Lane County Commissioners mis-handling federal housing funds and non-investigation by the Lane County DA’s office in the matter of a multi day shooting incident involving violations of federally protected rights against intimidation in federally funded housing funds and multiple counts of wire/mail fraud involving federal housing funds. One of the penalties for these offenses, besides prison time and large fines, is banishment from receiving federal housing funds for five years. My understanding is that the federal housing funds would still go to Oregon, but those connected to this incident would not be able to participate for at least five years. I also realize that under the federal “whistleblower law” that I have the option of bringing this case to federal court outside of Oregon on behalf of the U. S. Government. A quick evaluation of the fines involved yields a preliminary sum of over 23 Million dollars, banishment of use of federal housing funds for five years and multiple year federal prison sentences.
I have exhausted all avenues from the “not for profit” to the Governor’s office at the state level. All still hold that using bogus documents in this matter is fair. I am asking your office to look into this matter as the state and local entities refuse to give me the documents required by state and federal law. Please have someone from your office contact me by Email 

A Fair Housing complaint was filed with the Seattle HUD office. That investigation is currently under review by the Washington HUD enforcement division. The case is currently active because the investigative arm of the Lane County Board of County Commissioners, Lane County DA’s office had an active open investigation pertaining to the shooting incidents resulting from the denial of services letter, Lane County Counsel Liane Richardson is still in non-compliance in providing required documents from our case file that she has removed from the HOME TBA to her office, the Governors investigation, regardless of whether the statute of limitations had expired, re-starts the two year court filing time limit. This is a serious matter in that Oregon and Lane County are receiving 100’s of millions of federal housing money and are showing a total disregard for Federal oversight requirements. Their actions constitute an enterprise under Federal definitions and would come under RICCO with added penalties. Due to the abuses being perpetrated upon a disabled person all fines triple.   
     This, plus what was sent to Governor Kulongoski's office was faxed to Defazio's office 4/15/2009.

I received a packet of documents from our file in the Governor’s office. Interesting things included, interesting things left out.
I spoke with Wentzel, she said my request for documents was sent to Oregon Housing and Community Services. I called OHCS, Office of  Victor Merced Morales Flores y Jimenez, They told me it was referred to a person who is “out sick” and no predictable time of return. They transferred me to the infamous “answering machine” that isn’t going to be checked for messages.
I then receive the documents by mail from General Counsel Governor’s Office, then a phone call from Wentzel, where she says “your records requests were sent yesterday.”

I will be calling to see where exactly the file came from and why  it has 2 different versions of a letter sent to me.
 
Right now it appears that there is something “hinky” about where the documents went from the Governor’s fax number to his office files. Then there is the “talking points” fax from Director OHCS Crager to Governor’s office Cogswell that states...
“We have been informed by LCHSC (Lane County Human Services Commission?) that due to fear of possible repercussions, the landlord reversed the eviction notice and offered the couple free rent for the remainder of their contract.”... –Dated November 1, 2006, but faxed December 6, 2006.

This clearly shows that LCHSC was aware that the opined reason of “being evicted terminates the rental subsidy” was bogus. It shows that they knew that the “Contract” was still in force until the accepted end date. What does the phrase “due to fear of possible repercussions” mean? Where is the document from LCHSC to OHCS that this information came from? Will OHCS send it when the sick employee returns? Why did OHCS send the “talking points” fax to the Governor? Why did Victor Merced Morales Flores y Jimenez change his name to Victor Merced? 

I will post document links when they all get in.

https://twitter.com/MagicBus3

Just a tidbit here:

When Lane County decided to have PAID commissioners instead of the volunteers they had for years, it was supposed to eliminate the position of county administrator as the commissioners were to take on the duties held by the admin.  The commissioners took the duties, but the county admin position still exists all these years later. A true testament to the county's mismanagement of taxpayer dollars.

Plus, as soon as the commissioner seats became paid spots, thats when all the problems with it started.
hmmmm.... strange coincidence there....

While I patiently wait for the Governors office to send the information I requested, here is another test of the Oregon Community Foundation.

Go to http://www.estacadanews.com/news/story.php?story_id=124225091064759000
See if the post below gets put on and if ANYONE from the Oregon Community Foundation responds.

When it stated in the article above,
   “We’ve worked really hard to establish a secure, permanent fund for Estacada,” Brookshire said. “In these times, it’s important that people know these funds are secure. If someone wants to donate a million dollars to us, they can be assured that the funds won’t walk out the door. Our funds are part of the Oregon Community Foundation that has 1,500 funds and close to a billion dollars in assets. In today’s economic climate, it’s important for people to know that.”

How accurate is the "close to a billion dollars in assets" statement? What year does that refer to? Does it include the recent enormous swings in the stock market and real estate? One way to know is if a representative from the Oregon Community Foundation would post here and answer any and all questions about their financial health. If they don't, use that in how you decide where you send your money.
 http://www.estacadanews.com/news/story.php?story_id=124225091064759000

Commissioner Stewart is the only upstanding individual on the Board of Commissioners ladies and gents.. and even the County Administrator tries to do the right things right - but remember, he also works for the Board ( the majority vote of the Board! ) and that means he works for the 3 snake oil salesmen Sorenson, Fleenor, and Handy.

While everyone is concerned with finding and keeping a job and not losing their homes, Commissioner Sorenson is busy making county folks spend unnecessary money to purchase frames and photos of he and his lackeys, Fleenor and Handy, to give out to award recipients. Yes, the world is run amuck with ego and it's only getting worse.

Listen closely.. Commissioner Stewart & Commissioner Dwyer have NO POWER to change anything, because the 3 stooges have the majority vote.. and can do whatever they want, and yes, that includes NOT fund public safety yet still add unnecessary assistants to their offices.

Chair Sorenson wants to keep his Commissioner paycheck while still being an attorney, and still look for a job in D.C. so of course, that's why he wants to fund additional half time employees in the Board of Commissioners' office. No surprise there.. and Handy is just a follower but has convinced his buddies Fleenor and Sorenson that Phyllis Barkhurst, his campaign manager, will do anything & everything necessary to pursue THEIR interests, so of course, they want to fund a job just for her. ( She's also done a wonderful job of cleaning up Commissioner Handy's un-oh's before they go public - we all know he can't wipe without her help! ) Don't let them tell you the job will be subject to "open recruitment".. we all know it's about who you know, and yes, they intend to waste the time of everyone who applies for that "research development analyst" position until it's time to announce that Phyllis is their new employee.

As for Fleenor, not only is he antigrowth and antipublic safety.. he said Sen. Ron Wyden's threat that SRS funding will go away if they don't spend some of it on jail beds, is "hogwash"...

Anyway, back to "award recipients".. Fleenor & Sorenson hassled the prior Budget Committee chair David Crowley until he resigned - then thought they'd give him an award for his service to the County. 3 cheers for David for not showing up and accepting such a piece of political crap after all they tried to pull.

Long story short, yes, your public safety system is going down the drain and 3 of your Commissioners, Handy, Fleenor, and Sorenson are at the helm. They want more "Community Outreach" but when the community begs them to fund public safety, they scoff and choose to fund their own office assistants instead. They most certainly now will have more time on their hands to do well, whatever it is they do, that most certainly can't be called "work".

 a letter is worth a million dollars
Emailed
5/22/2009 10:40 AM
Faye Hills Stewart;

Using the Memorandum below of May 6, 2009 – Order Date May 20,2009, noting the portion boxed in red – starting with “BE IT RESOLVED that within the resources available to the County…”

My wife and I having been discriminated against in a matter involving Federally Subsidized Housing request that the Lane County Commissioner’s provide the services that they are resolving to do with this order, to wit: we request that Lane County Commissioner’s provide us with the complete HOME TBA files concerning Community Sharing Program of Cottage Grove, all files relating to us that were created by any branch of Lane County or it’s subgrantee Community Sharing Program of Cottage Grove.  This request covers all paper, electronic, and email documents from 2000 to 2009 inclusive.  We have requested these files from Liane Richardson, Lane County Counsel.  She refused to provide them to us, and falsely stated in an email that they had already been sent to us.  She has also quoted us a price of several thousand dollars to get emails that are public documents.  

Faye Hills Stewart, as a Lane County Commissioner and Board Member of Community Sharing Program of Cottage Grove and recipient of email correspondence from us concerning this matter and participant in one of the Lane County Email Hearings concerning this matter, you are in a unique position to be able to have access to all of the information that we are requesting.  I ask you officially to grant this request that falls within the purview of the order that Lane County Commissioners voted into effect that was adopted because…. “The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) is a source of funding through the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department (OECDD) that provides millions of dollars for construction of a variety of public facilities that principally serve the needs of lower income families in Lane County.  Lane County has a $1,000,000 CDBG grant for Row River Water System Improvement Project that currently requires publication of a Fair Housing Resolution in order to draw down funds.”

The Lane County Commissioners, having recently publicly chastised by Oregon’s United States Senator Ron Wyden and Oregon’s Congressional Representative Peter Defazio for duplicity in their correspondence with the US Government concerning how they use Federal Funds, surely would not deny this request because such a denial would indicate that the county has no intention of abiding by it’s federal Fair Housing responsibilities as codified in this order but were only “hanging paper” in order to receive Federal MONEY.

To summarize:  I request copies of all material relating to Kyle Bussey and his wife Susan Smith that was generated by Lane County HOME TBA, Community Sharing Program of Cottage Grove, Lane County Commissioners, and the By-Laws of Lane County Commissioners and Community Sharing Program of Cottage Grove on a DVD in the format that is used to publish documents on the Lane County Commissioners website.  Please respond by email and US Post within 10 days of receipt of whether you intend to comply with this request.
Also please put us on the notification list for any “calls for public comment” concerning any housing and federal funds,


Patiently awaiting your reply

http://www.co.lane.or.us/BCC_Info/Meeting_Info/2009/OrderText/5-20/W1a.pdf

http://media.kval.com/documents/wyden_letter.pdf

http://media.kval.com/documents/defazio_letter.pdf

5/30/2009 12:35 PM







Liane RICHARDSON <Liane.RICHARDSON@co.lane.or.us>



 Relying on the below cited ORS's I contend that all actions that have been
taken concerning us re. HOME TBA, by Lane
County and it's cohorts have been conducted contrary to Oregon Statutes. I
request that Lane County Counsel, Lane County, Oregon send by e-mail true
and correct copies of all administrative hearings, formal and informal, that
were conducted by any Lane County entity concerning us re. HOME TBA including all notices, evidence, testimony and
participants involved. I request validation of the notices, venue, judge,
evidence used as it relates to the ORS's cited below and HUD Regulations.



Forever Here









183.470 Orders in contested cases. In a contested case:

      (1) Every order adverse to a party to the proceeding shall be in
writing or stated in the record and may be accompanied by an opinion.

      (2) A final order shall be accompanied by findings of fact and
conclusions of law. The findings of fact shall consist of a concise
statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings as to each
contested issue of fact and as to each ultimate fact required to support the
agency's order.

      (3) The agency shall notify the parties to a proceeding of a final
order by delivering or mailing a copy of the order and any accompanying
findings and conclusions to each party or, if applicable, the party's
attorney of record.

      (4) Every final order shall include a citation of the statutes under
which the order may be appealed. [1957 c.717 §11; 1971 c.734 §17; 1979 c.593
§22]





183.635 Agencies required to use administrative law judges from Office of
Administrative Hearings; exceptions. (1) Except as provided in this section,
all agencies must use administrative law judges assigned from the Office of
Administrative Hearings established under ORS 183.605 to conduct contested
case hearings, without regard to whether those hearings are subject to the
procedural requirements for contested case hearings.

      (2) The following agencies need not use administrative law judges
assigned from the office:

      (a) Attorney General.

      (b) Boards of stewards appointed by the Oregon Racing Commission.

      (c) Bureau of Labor and Industries and the Commissioner of the Bureau
of Labor and Industries.

      (d) Department of Corrections.

      (e) Department of Education, State Board of Education and
Superintendent of Public Instruction.

      (f) Department of Higher Education and institutions of higher
education listed in ORS 352.002.

      (g) Department of Human Services for vocational rehabilitation
services cases under 29 U.S.C. 722(c) and disability determination cases
under 42 U.S.C. 405.

      (h) Department of Revenue.

      (i) Department of State Police.

      (j) Employment Appeals Board.

      (k) Employment Relations Board.

      (L) Energy Facility Siting Council.

      (m) Fair Dismissal Appeals Board.

      (n) Governor.

      (o) Land Conservation and Development Commission.

      (p) Land Use Board of Appeals.

      (q) Local government boundary commissions created pursuant to ORS
199.430.

      (r) Oregon Youth Authority.

      (s) Psychiatric Security Review Board.

      (t) Public Utility Commission.

      (u) Secretary of State.

      (v) State Accident Insurance Fund Corporation.

      (w) State Apprenticeship and Training Council.

      (x) State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision.

      (y) State Land Board.

      (z) State Treasurer.

      (aa) Wage and Hour Commission.

      (3) The Workers' Compensation Board is exempt from using
administrative law judges assigned from the office for any hearing conducted
by the board under ORS chapters 147, 654 and 656. Except as specifically
provided in this subsection, the Department of Consumer and Business
Services must use administrative law judges assigned from the office only
for contested cases arising out of the department's powers and duties under:

      (a) ORS chapter 59;

      (b) ORS 200.005 to 200.075;

      (c) ORS chapter 455;

      (d) ORS chapter 674;

      (e) ORS chapters 706 to 716;

      (f) ORS chapter 717;

      (g) ORS chapters 722, 723, 725 and 726; and

      (h) ORS chapters 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 737, 742, 743, 743A, 744,
746, 748 and 750.

      (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in any proceeding in
which an agency is required to use an administrative law judge assigned from
the office, an officer or employee of the agency may not conduct the hearing
on behalf of the agency.

      (5) Notwithstanding any other provision of ORS 183.600 to 183.690, an
agency is not required to use an administrative law judge assigned from the
office if:

      (a) Federal law requires that a different administrative law judge or
hearing officer be used; or

      (b) Use of an administrative law judge from the office could result in
a loss of federal funds.

      (6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the
Department of Environmental Quality must use administrative law judges
assigned from the office only for contested case hearings conducted under
the provisions of ORS 183.413 to 183.470. [1999 c.849 §9; 2001 c.900 §46;
2003 c.75 §8; 2005 c.22 §131; 2005 c.26 §18; 2007 c.239 §9]



      Note: The amendments to 183.635 by section 9, chapter 239, Oregon Laws
2007, become operative July 1, 2008. See section 16, chapter 239, Oregon
Laws 2007. The text that is operative until July 1, 2008, is set forth for
the user's convenience.

      183.635 (1) Except as provided in this section, all agencies must use
administrative law judges assigned from the Office of Administrative
Hearings established under ORS 183.605 to conduct contested case hearings,
without regard to whether those hearings are subject to the procedural
requirements for contested case hearings.

      (2) The following agencies need not use administrative law judges
assigned from the office:

      (a) Attorney General.

      (b) Boards of stewards appointed by the Oregon Racing Commission.

      (c) Bureau of Labor and Industries and the Commissioner of the Bureau
of Labor and Industries.

      (d) Department of Corrections.

      (e) Department of Education, State Board of Education and
Superintendent of Public Instruction.

      (f) Department of Higher Education and institutions of higher
education listed in ORS 352.002.

      (g) Department of Human Services for vocational rehabilitation
services cases under 29 U.S.C. 722(c) and disability determination cases
under 42 U.S.C. 405.

      (h) Department of Revenue.

      (i) Department of State Police.

      (j) Employment Appeals Board.

      (k) Employment Relations Board.

      (L) Energy Facility Siting Council.

      (m) Fair Dismissal Appeals Board.

      (n) Governor.

      (o) Land Conservation and Development Commission.

      (p) Land Use Board of Appeals.

      (q) Local government boundary commissions created pursuant to ORS
199.425 or 199.430.

      (r) Oregon Youth Authority.

      (s) Psychiatric Security Review Board.

      (t) Public Utility Commission.

      (u) Secretary of State.

      (v) State Accident Insurance Fund Corporation.

      (w) State Apprenticeship and Training Council.

      (x) State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision.

      (y) State Land Board.

      (z) State Treasurer.

      (aa) Wage and Hour Commission.

      (3) The Workers' Compensation Board is exempt from using
administrative law judges assigned from the office for any hearing conducted
by the board under ORS chapters 147, 654 and 656. Except as specifically
provided in this subsection, the Department of Consumer and Business
Services must use administrative law judges assigned from the office only
for contested cases arising out of the department's powers and duties under:

      (a) ORS chapter 59;

      (b) ORS 200.005 to 200.075;

      (c) ORS chapter 455;

      (d) ORS chapter 674;

      (e) ORS chapters 706 to 716;

      (f) ORS chapter 717;

      (g) ORS chapters 722, 723, 725 and 726; and

      (h) ORS chapters 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 737, 742, 743, 743A, 744,
746, 748 and 750.

      (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in any proceeding in
which an agency is required to use an administrative law judge assigned from
the office, an officer or employee of the agency may not conduct the hearing
on behalf of the agency.

      (5) Notwithstanding any other provision of ORS 183.600 to 183.690, an
agency is not required to use an administrative law judge assigned from the
office if:

      (a) Federal law requires that a different administrative law judge or
hearing officer be used; or

      (b) Use of an administrative law judge from the office could result in
a loss of federal funds.

      (6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the
Department of Environmental Quality must use administrative law judges
assigned from the office only for contested case hearings conducted under
the provisions of ORS 183.413 to 183.470.

Sent to Liane RICHARDSON <Liane.RICHARDSON@co.lane.or.us>

5/30/2009 1:54 PM

According to statute cited below the time limitation to file on our case would be seven years from when the Lane County DA's office closed the investigation of the multible shooting incidents of Alvin Johnson towards us, video tape in evidence with Lane County Sherriff's Department. The case can be started by us with forifitures of assets.
Forever Here



Oregon Statutes - Chapter 166 - Offenses Against Public Order; Firearms and Other Weapons; Racketeering - Section 166.725 - Remedies for violation of ORS 166.720; time limitation.
(11)(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a criminal or civil action or proceeding under ORS 166.715 to 166.735 may be commenced at any time within five years after the conduct in violation of a provision of ORS 166.715 to 166.735 terminates or the cause of action accrues. If a criminal prosecution or civil action or other proceeding is brought, or intervened in, to punish, prevent or restrain any violation of the provisions of ORS 166.715 to 166.735, the running of the period of limitations prescribed by this section with respect to any cause of action arising under subsection (6) or (7) of this section which is based in whole or in part upon any matter complained of in any such prosecution, action or proceeding shall be suspended during the pendency of such prosecution, action or proceeding and for two years following its termination.

http://law.onecle.com/oregon/166-offenses-against-public-order-firearms/166.725.html

To see what type of penalties might be handed down for wire fraud.
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel09/topten_052909.htm
According to the first law President Obama signed into law, each time a check was or was not written relating to disability discrimination is a new and separate act of wire fraud is committed, with the fines tripling because of the abuse directed towards a disabled person. Each month that Faye Stewart refused to exercise his federally required duties regarding a landlord shooting at tenants in a federally funded housing program that he was intimately involved with the sub-grantee not-for-profit is again a new and separate RICCO violation.
To quote one of the FBI cases,
“Racketeering
The RICO indictment alleges that, since January 2001, Askarkhodjaev has been the leader of a criminal enterprise and directed the rest of the co-defendants in carrying out unlawful activities in furtherance of the enterprise.” That will be how I would describe Faye and his “cohorts” in the next round in court.

RICCO Redux
Some things that RICCO can do.
Key West PD
In June 1984, the Key West Police Department in Monroe County, Florida was declared a criminal enterprise under the Federal RICO statutes after a lengthy United States Department of Justice investigation. Several high-ranking officers of the department, including Deputy Police Chief Raymond Cassamayor, were arrested on federal charges of running a protection racket for illegal cocaine smugglers. [5] At trial, a witness testified he routinely delivered bags of cocaine to the Deputy Chief's office at City Hall.
[edit] Michael Milken
On March 29, 1989, financier Michael Milken was indicted on 98 counts of racketeering and fraud relating to an investigation into insider trading and other offenses. Milken was accused of using a wide-ranging network of contacts to manipulate stock and bond prices. It was one of the first occasions that a RICO indictment was brought against an individual with no ties to organized crime. Milken pled guilty to six lesser offenses rather than face spending the rest of his life in prison.
On September 7, 1988, Milken's employer, Drexel Burnham Lambert, was also threatened with a RICO indictment under the legal doctrine that corporations are responsible for their employees' crimes. Drexel avoided RICO charges by pleading no contest to lesser felonies. While many sources say that Drexel pleaded guilty, in truth the firm only admitted it was "not in a position to dispute the allegations." If Drexel had been indicted, it would have had to post a performance bond of up to $1 billion to avoid having its assets frozen. This would have taken precedence over all of the firm's other obligations--including the loans that provided 96 percent of its capital. If the bond ever had to be paid, its shareholders would have been practically wiped out. Since banks will not extend credit to a firm indicted under RICO, an indictment would have likely put Drexel out of business.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act#Hells_Angels_Motorcycle_Club

Tuesday, June 09, 2009
541 431 0610
Attention:  June
Sent 6/9/2009 10:35:42 AM
Re: Lane County Oregon Selective prosecution

The Honorable United States Senator Wyden

Selective prosecution
An overlooked consequence of the Lane County Commissioner systematic de-funding of Lane County’s Law Enforcement System, is that it allows the process of selective prosecution.

Selective Prosecution is when law enforcement chooses which people are arrested or prosecuted.  This allows for unchecked favoritism and vendetta’s to be perpetrated and not investigated by law enforcement under the guise of “we are just so under funded we can not prosecute every criminal.” Take the example of Faye Stewart, County Commissioner and Board Member of the not for profit Community Sharing Program of Cottage Grove.  When Community Sharing Program of Cottage Grove (CSP) was accused of invoicing federal government for services not rendered in their management of part of a Federally Funded Housing Program, Faye Stewart used his position as County Commissioner to block a proper investigation at the county level by relying on two known bogus documents.  Subsequently, when Alvin Johnson shot at the tenants involved 14 fourteen times with a shotgun over a 2 week period in a matter directly related to the original accusation of FRAUD, the Lane County District Attorney’s office let the case lay open in their files for two years and refused to prosecute even though they had video taped evidence of the shooting and an email from Johnson’s lawyer stating Mr. Johnson had been shooting at the tenants.  When we called the DA’s office about why they were not doing anything they said, “We are waiting to see what happens next.” What happened next was that when we were moving out of the home on 81723 Mahr Lane Creswell, Oregon, the landlord blocked our egress and threatened to kill us, followed us 5 miles south on Hwy 99 where we pulled into an auto salvage yard and called 911. No law enforcement came, the landlord came into the auto salvage office and threatened us in front of witnesses, they told him he was trespassing and would need to leave. He didn’t leave, 911 was called again. Eventually the landlord left. An hour passed and still no law enforcement came. My wife was fearful that the landlord would kill us if we went back to move the rest of our property and law enforcement would do nothing to protect us, we were forced to leave everything that we owned that didn’t fit into the one U-Haul truck load we initially moved.

What we would like you to do.

     Obtain all information from the Lane County DA, Lane County Board of Commissioners, Community Sharing of Cottage Grove, Oregon Housing and Community Services pertaining to our involvement with HOME TBA and Alvin Johnson, the landlord, including all e-mail references to us. We have tried numerous times and received scant information. In our last attempt getting this information from Liane Richardson, Lane County Counsel, she falsely stated that we had already received everything. Please help.


Please keep our address and phone confidential, my wife still fears for her safety.


Prosecutor rejoins the fight on petty crime.
Publication: The Register-Guard (Eugene, OR)
Date: Friday, August 17 2007
Byline: Bill Bishop The Register-Guard
Petty criminals in Lane County will no longer get the free ride they've enjoyed the past three years, under a new, modified prosecution program announced Thursday.
Low-level offenders will have the option of paying to enroll in a private company's home study course to avoid conviction on crimes such as breaking into cars, driving with a suspended license or stealing less than $750.
Lane County District Attorney Doug Harcleroad halted prosecution of such crimes, except in egregious cases, in early 2004 to meet a $271,000 budget cut in his office. The move eliminated about 1,500 prosecutions annually.
Since then, the district attorney's office has crunched the numbers at least a dozen times seeking a way to get back into the business of prosecuting misdemeanors, Chief Deputy District Attorney Alex Gardner said Thursday in a news conference outlining the new system.
Given the shortage of jail space in Lane County, the new program is not a get-tough, lock-them-up approach, Gardner added. Instead, the goal is to reduce repeat crime, get repayment for victims and avoid additional cost to taxpayers, Gardner said. To do the project, the prosecutor's office is filling one vacant lawyer position and adjusting office workloads.
"We have to play by a different set of rules in Lane County," Gardner said. "It's either allow (petty criminals) to participate in this program, or do nothing."
During the three-year halt on minor prosecutions, law enforcement officials did not bother arresting and citing violators - except in the most severe circumstances - because they knew the prosecutor's office would not prosecute the cases.
Under the program, law enforcement officials will be free to resume issuing citations.
But there is no guarantee the new prosecution system will continue if the county orders more budget cuts or if prosecutors are flooded with new cases, Gardner said. Officials are not sure yet just how many prosecutions they will be able to handle under the new system.
The key to the new approach is minimizing the time that deputy prosecutors spend on relatively simple cases. Local court administrators and local defense lawyers are collaborating closely to modify court procedures, he said.
The new arrangement provides offenders with police reports, other key evidence against them and a plea offer, all at the time of arraignment. The offender then will have seven to 13 days to decide whether to enroll in the Western Corrections Values Improvement Program. If the offender rejects the offer, the case will be set for trial within 45 days.
Offenders who accept the offer must plead guilty, agree to repay victims and pay $200 to cover the cost of the private program. If they finish the program, the charge will be dismissed. If they fail, their case will go directly to sentencing.
Greg Hazarabedian, director of the Public Defender Services of Lane County, said guarding the rights of offenders motivated his office to participate in the effort. The program allows accused people to have meaningful consultation with a defense attorney, review of all the evidence and the ability to decide what course is best for their case, he said.

Creative changes.
Publication: The Register-Guard (Eugene, OR)
Date: Saturday, August 21 2004
Byline: The Register-Guard
Lane County District Attorney Alex Gardner encountered plenty of skeptics when he conducted a public opinion survey last month to help decide which crimes his budget-strapped office should prosecute - and which it shouldn't - for the time being.
Some critics, including this newspaper, questioned the use of an informal, unscientific survey to help craft a complex prosecutorial strategy that has broad ramifications. They also questioned the wisdom of making substantive policy changes when Doug Harcleroad, who recently left office six months before the end of his term to take a break, already had put a budget plan into effect and intends to return to begin his sixth term in January.
Gardner announced a new plan Wednesday that calls for prosecutors to pursue more petty thefts, let slide more low-level drug possessions and exercise broad discretion to downgrade misdemeanors to lesser violations.
While it remains to be seen if all of Gardner's changes are practical and can be accomplished in light of staffing limitations, the district attorney deserves credit for coming up with a creative, in-depth plan for accommodating a $425,000 budget reduction in an office that already is overextended.
In response to the survey results, Gardner plans to ease up on minor drug possessions, treating marijuana cases more leniently than those involving methamphetamine - a common-sense adjustment that reflects the very different risks the substances pose to public safety.
Gardner also plans to add back the roughly 2,000 criminal cases that Harcleroad had stopped prosecuting. The district attorney intends to prosecute "petty crimes" such as check forgery, credit card fraud, theft of less than $750, car break-ins and other crimes that both survey respondents and local law enforcement officials ranked as high priorities.
Recognizing that these moves will increase workloads throughout the county's criminal justice system, Gardner, after consulting with probationary and corrections officials, made several innovative adjustments.
One change involves probation, an area that siphons off an inordinate amount of prosecutors' time. Under Gardner's plan, prosecutors will no longer seek extensions for probation violators but instead will rely on probation officers to penalize violators and then, if necessary, seek probation revocation. The aim, Gardner says, is to give violators a reasonable opportunity to change and then, if they don't, send them packing back to jail instead of wasting precious time and resources on working with habitual probation offenders.
In another key change, Gardner plans to downgrade a broad array of petty crimes from misdemeanors to lesser violations. The move is intended to save substantial time and money for the DA's office, as well as police, courts and corrections, since violations are punished by fines instead of jail sentences and probation.

Conflict of Commitment
Are your Lane County Commissioners spending too much time on outside “committees” that they felt that they “needed” $50,000 assistants to do their County job. Must be nice to control the Lane County budget.

Shooting VS Cross Burning, which do you think is worse?

We will be sending in form below naming landlord, Lane County Board of Commissioners, Lane County DA. And Community Sharing of Cottage Grove. If you know any of these folks, please invite them to post here to defend their acts.


http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/or/Civil%20Rights%20Complaint%20Form-USAOR.pdf

Shooting Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQQ4ystsAWo

http://portland.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/pd061609.htm

Two Medford Men Sentenced for Role in Federal Hate Crime
Defendants Admit to Cross-Burning Incident at Medford Residence on May 26, 2008
EUGENE, OR—U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon Karin J. Immergut and Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Loretta King, announced today that Gary Moss, age 37, was sentenced to serve 41 months in federal prison for conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights. Co-conspirator Devan Klausegger, age 30, was sentenced to serve 51 months for the same charge. Both defendants were ordered to serve three years of supervised release and ordered to pay restitution to the victims in the amount of $3,107.00.

It’s Scarlett O’Hara & Ashley
One good thing about this Foundation thing I’ve been telling you about, you can use their financial statements of this year that they file with the IRS as an investment guide. Wondering about which local entities will go belly up, check if they “donate” to the state level community foundation, don’t worry there is a state level “community foundation” in every state and many countries. It’s the Scarlett O’Hara/Ashley(say that with a deep southern drawl) ploy. Remember when Scarlett wanted to be with Ashley after the financial collapse of the South in the 1860’s but he was broke. Her solution was to build a bunch of cheap houses for former slaves and have Ashley hired as the contractor. We are now in the same financial position. They are using TARP and Federal Stimulus funds to hire their “Ashleys” to make sure their families and friends have funds. Then the rest of us get to live in the slave houses and serve them while we beg for scraps from their bounty. As an example, consider Wells Fargo, Washington Mutual and Wachovia.

“Wells Fargo chairman: 'I feel like a kid in a candy store ...
Wells Fargo Chairman *** Kovacevich says the battered banking industry is rife with ... The bank is reportedly looking at Seattle-based Washington Mutual, ...
www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/09/.../daily71.html”

“AFP: Washington Mutual pressured as economic storm intensifies
Sep 17, 2008 ... Washington Mutual, the country's largest savings and loan, ... The Wall Street Journal said Wells Fargo and Citigroup had shown an initial ...
afp.google.com/.../ALeqM5hjf0qZmNr4DIHdG0AAdko5GvCn8w“

“washington mutual inc. and wells fargo Resources | BNET
Apr 8, 2009 ... White papers, case studies, business articles, and blog posts relating to washington mutual inc. and wells fargo.
resources.bnet.com/.../washington+mutual+inc.+and+wells+fargo+&+co..html”

“WaMu Is Seized, Sold Off to J.P. Morgan, In Largest Failure in ...
Sep 26, 2008 ... Federal regulators seized Washington Mutual and struck a deal to sell the ... A number of banks -- including Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo and ...
online.wsj.com/article/SB122238415586576687.html”

“Wells Fargo & Co,California acquires Washinton Mutual Inc-Mortgage ...
US - Wells Fargo & Co, San Francisco, California, acquired the mortgage service portfolio of Washington Mutual Inc (WM), a bank holding company. ...
www.alacrastore.com/.../Wells_Fargo_Co_California_acquires_Washinton_Mutual_Inc_Mortgage_from_Washington_Mutual_Seattle_... -“

Long part on Wachovia.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wachovia

 Forced Government Sale
After Steel took over, he insisted that Wachovia would stay independent. However, its stock price plunged 27 percent during trading on September 26 due to the seizure of Washington Mutual the previous night. On the same day, several businesses and institutional depositors withdrew money from their accounts in order to drop their balances below the $100,000 insured by the FDIC—an event known in banking circles as a "silent run." Ultimately, Wachovia lost a total of $5 billion in deposits that day—about one percent of the bank's total deposits.[39] The large outflow of deposits attracted the attention of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates national banks. Federal regulators pressured Wachovia to put itself up for sale over the weekend; had Wachovia failed, it would have been a severe drain on the FDIC's insurance fund due to its size.[40][41]
As business halted for the weekend, Wachovia was already in talks with Citigroup and Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo initially emerged as the frontrunner to acquire the ailing Wachovia's banking operations, but backed out due to concerns over Wachovia's commercial loans. By this time, regulators were concerned that Wachovia wouldn't have enough short-term funding to open for business on September 29. In order to obtain enough liquidity to do business, banks usually depend on short-term loans to each other. However, the markets had been so battered by a credit crisis related to the housing bubble that banks were skittish about making such loans. Under the circumstances, regulators feared that if customers pulled out more money, Wachovia wouldn't have enough liquidity to meet its obligations.[41]
On 29 September 2008, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), acting under a 1991 law empowering it to deal with large bank failures on short notice, announced that Citigroup would acquire Wachovia Corporation's banking operations. The transaction was to be an "open bank" transfer of ownership. Wachovia's bank subsidiaries did not fail, nor were they placed into receivership. The transaction would have been facilitated by the FDIC, with the concurrence of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the President. The FDIC's open bank assistance procedures normally require the FDIC to find the cheapest way to rescue a failing bank. However, the FDIC bypassed this requirement after determining that a potential failure of Wachovia posed a "systemic risk" to the health of the economy. Steel had little choice but to agree, and the decision was announced roughly 45 minutes before the markets opened.[41][42][43][44]
In addition, the FDIC said that the agency would absorb Citigroup's losses above $42 billion; Wachovia's loan portfolio is valued at $312 billion. In exchange for assuming this risk, the FDIC will receive $12 billion in preferred stock and warrants from Citigroup.[42][45][46][47] The transaction would have been an all-stock transfer, with Wachovia Corporation stockholders to receive stock from Citigroup, valuing Wachovia stock at about one dollar per share for a total transaction value of about $2.16 billion. Citigroup will also assume Wachovia’s senior and subordinated debt.[45][48] Citigroup intends to sell ten billion dollars of new stock on the open market to recapitalize its purchased banking operations.[45] The proposed closing date for the Wachovia purchase was by the end of the year, 2008.[49]
Wachovia expected to continue as a publicly traded company, retaining its retail brokerage arm, Wachovia Securities and Evergreen mutual funds.[48] At the time, Wachovia Securities had 14,600 financial advisers and managed more than $1 trillion, third in the U.S. after Merrill Lynch and Citigroup's Smith Barney.[45]
The announcement drew some criticism from Wachovia stockholders who felt the dollar-per-share price was too cheap. Some of them planned to try to defeat the deal when it came up for shareholder approval. However, institutional investors such as mutual funds and pension funds controlled 73 percent of Wachovia's stock; individual stockholders would have had to garner a significant amount of support from institutional shareholders to derail the sale. Also, several experts in corporate dealmaking told The Charlotte Observer that such a strategy is very risky since federal regulators helped broker the deal. One financial expert told the Observer that if Wachovia's shareholders voted the deal down, the OCC could have simply seized Wachovia and placed it into the receivership of the FDIC, which would then sell it to Citigroup. Had this happened, Wachovia's shareholders risked being completely wiped out.[50]
[edit] Bidding battle for Wachovia
On September 29, 2008, Wachovia announced its intention to sell its banking operations to Citigroup for $2.2 billion in an open bank transaction facilitated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; according to the FDIC, Wachovia "did not fail." Wachovia would have continued to operate as a separate, publicly traded company as the owner of Wachovia Securities, AG Edwards and Evergreen Investments. The sale was agreed to be completed by December 31, 2008.[42][43][49][51]
However, on October 3, 2008, Wells Fargo and Wachovia announced they had agreed to merge in an all-stock transaction requiring no FDIC involvement, apparently nullifying the Citigroup deal. Wells Fargo announced it had agreed to acquire Wachovia for $15.1 billion in stock. Wachovia prefers the Wells Fargo deal, as it is a much higher valuation than the Citigroup deal, it keeps the banking and brokerage businesses together, and has less of an overlapping territory between the banks, as Wells Fargo is dominant in the West and Midwest compared to the redundant footprint of Wachovia and Citibank along the Atlantic Seaboard and in the South. Citigroup explored their legal options, demanding that Wachovia and Wells Fargo cease discussions, citing an exclusivity agreement between Citigroup and Wachovia. The deal still requires shareholder and regulatory approval.[52][53]
On October 4, 2008 a New York judge issued a temporary injunction blocking the transaction from going forward while the situation is sorted out.[54] However, this ruling was overturned.[55]
On October 9, 2008, Citigroup abandoned their attempt to purchase Wachovia, allowing Wells Fargo to proceed with a transaction instead. However, Citigroup is still pursuing its $60 billion claims, $20 billion in compensatory and $40 billion in punitive damages, against Wachovia and Wells Fargo for alleged violations of the exclusivity agreement.[56]
The Federal Reserve approved the merger with Wells Fargo on October 12, 2008.[57] The merger is, however, contingent on certain conditions, that the Federal Reserve has yet to announce.[58]
[edit] Purchase by Wells Fargo
On October 3, Wachovia announced the entire company would instead be merging with Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo will pay $15.1 billion—roughly $7 per share—to buy Wachovia. Unlike the Citigroup deal, the Wells Fargo deal will require no assistance from the federal government. The combined company will be headquartered in San Francisco, home to Wells Fargo. However, Charlotte will be the headquarters for the combined company's East Coast banking operations, and Wachovia Securities will remain in St. Louis. Three members of the Wachovia board will join the Wells Fargo board. Both companies' boards unanimously approved the merger on the night of October 2. [53] Citigroup has already taken measures to stop the Wells Fargo-Wachovia merger, claiming that Wells Fargo has engaged in "tortious interference" with an exclusivity agreement between Citigroup and Wachovia. That agreement states in part that until October 6, 2008 "Wachovia shall not, and shall not permit any of its subsidiaries or any of its or their respective officers, directors, [...] to [...] take any action to facilitate or encourage the submission of any Acquisition Proposal."[59] Wachovia and Wells Fargo argue that the Citigroup agreement was never binding, and that the Wells Fargo deal is better for Wachovia.[60] However, Citigroup convinced Justice Charles E. Ramos of the New York State Supreme Court to grant a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the Wells Fargo deal.[61] This ruling was later overturned by Judge James M. McGuire of the New York State Court of Appeals, partly because he believed Ramos did not have the right to rule on the case in Connecticut.[55]
On October 12 the U.S. Federal Reserve approved Wells Fargo's takeover of the bank, a deal that would create the largest bank branch network in the United States. A Federal Reserve statement said: "The Federal Reserve Board [today] announced its approval of the application ... by Wells Fargo & Company, San Francisco, California, to acquire Wachovia Corporation and its subsidiary banks," the Fed said in a statement on its website. The approval was adopted by a unanimous board decision following Citigroup's decision three days earlier to end court efforts to block Wachovia's merger with Wells Fargo, after having claimed it was illegal after its own, and U.S. government-backed, takeover deal forged Sept. 28.[62]
In filings unsealed two days before the merger approval in a New York federal court, Citigroup argued that its deal was better for U.S taxpayers and Wachovia shareholders. They said that they had exposed themselves to "substantial economic risk" by stating their intent to rescue Wachovia after less than 72 hours of due diligence. Citigroup had obtained an exclusive agreement tn order to protect itself.[63] Wachovia suffered a $23.9 billion loss in the third quarter.[64]
Wells Fargo's purchase of Wachovia closed on January 1, 2009.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo

2008 Financial Crisis
On October 28, 2008, Wells Fargo and Company was the recipient of $25B of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act Federal bail-out in the form of a preferred stock purchase. “Landler, Mark and Dash, Eric (October 14, 2008). "Drama Behind a $250 Billion Banking Deal". The New York Times (The New York Times Company). http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/business/economy/15bailout.html
 Retrieved on 2009-02-04.”
http://www.ustreas.gov/initiatives/eesa/docs/TransactionReport-11172008.pdf  This document no longer on US Treasury site???