Someone Sued Dave Frohnmayer. and won a settlement

https://nadiasindi.blogspot.com/2024/12/someone-sued-dave-frohnmayer-and-won.html?m=1

IRS Awards $20 Million to Whistleblowers

https://whistleblowersblog.org/corporate-whistleblowers/tax-whistleblowers/irs-awards-20-million-to-whistleblowers/

The DISRUPT Film Series - in retrospect

State v. Crotsley

https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/1989/308-or-272.html State v. Crotsley Annotate this Case 779 P.2d 600 (1989) 308 Or. 272 STATE of Oregon, Respondent On Review, v. James Alfred CROTSLEY, Petitioner On Review. TC CM 86-0273, CM 86-0293; CA A41802; SC S35916. Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc. Argued and Submitted June 13, 1989. Decided August 29, 1989. Diane L. Alessi, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner on review. With her on the petition was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem. Robert M. Atkinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review. With him on the response were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., Salem. VAN HOOMISSEN, Judge. We allowed review in this case solely to interpret the first sentence of ORS 161.062(1): "When the same conduct or criminal episode violates two or more statutory provisions and each provision requires proof of an element that the others do not, there are as many separately punishable offenses as there are separate statutory violations." The issue here is whether separate first and third degree convictions and sentences may be imposed for a single act of rape or sodomy. On the present facts, we hold that separate convictions and sentences may be imposed. I. Defendant appealed convictions for third degree rape and third degree sodomy. ORS 163.305(1), 163.355, 163.385.[1] He contended that the trial court erred in not consolidating those convictions and sentences with his first degree rape and sodomy *601 convictions and sentences arising out of the same sexual assault. ORS 163.375, 163.405.[2] The Court of Appeals held that the convictions and sentences should not be consolidated. State v. Crotsley, 94 Or. App. 347, 765 P.2d 818 (1988). We affirm. Defendant took a 14-year-old girl to his apartment, where he threatened her with a knife and forced her to engage in sexual intercourse and in several acts of deviate sexual intercourse. He was charged with first degree rape and three counts of first degree sodomy because he used forcible compulsion. He was also charged with third degree rape and three counts of third degree sodomy because his victim was under 16 years of age. One pair of first and third degree sodomy charges were later dismissed. Defendant was tried by the court without a jury. The trial court convicted him of all six remaining charges and entered six separate convictions and imposed six separate sentences. Defendant appealed, arguing that the three convictions related to the age of his victim, third degree rape and third degree sodomy, were included in corresponding first degree crimes and that, therefore, the trial court should have consolidated the third degree convictions into their first degree counterparts. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in applying ORS 161.062 to the facts of the case. II. Defendant argues that the first and third degree rape and sodomy charges are merely alternate charges for the same criminal acts, i.e., that he is subject to conviction and sentence on the first degree charges only if the state proved forcible compulsion and to conviction on the third degree charges if the state did not prove forcible compulsion. He also argues that the legislature intended that convictions and sentences for lower degrees of rape and sodomy would be included within convictions and sentences for first degree rape and sodomy. The state argues that ORS 161.062 unambiguously authorizes the separate convictions and sentences imposed here. We agree with the state. Prior to enactment of ORS 161.062, and in the absence of clear statutory guidance, the courts fashioned judicial rules to address circumstances in which a single criminal episode provides grounds for multiple convictions and sentences. These include situations where a single criminal episode involves violation of more than one statute; where a single criminal episode involves multiple crimes against the same victim; and where a single criminal episode involves multiple victims. Where no clear legislative intent could be discerned concerning multiple convictions and sentencing for crimes committed during a single criminal episode, this court had to speculate whether the legislature would have expected an offender to be sentenced for more than the most serious felony. See State v. Cloutier, 286 Or. 579, 596 P.2d 1278 (1979). After several attempts to enact legislation that would address judicial concerns about the lack of statutory guidance in this complex area, in 1985 the legislature enacted ORS 161.062, the first sentence of which *602 is at issue here.[3] The proponents of ORS 161.062 clearly intended that criminal records accurately reflect all crimes actually committed and that a person who commits multiple crimes by the same conduct or during the same criminal episode should have a criminal record reflecting each crime committed rather than only a single conviction which would not accurately portray the nature and extent of that person's conduct.[4] The legislative history and text of ORS 161.062 could not be more clear in rejecting earlier case law requiring consolidation of multiple convictions and sentences arising from the same criminal episode.[5] For that *603 reason, defendant's reliance on cases decided prior to the enactment of ORS 161.062 in 1985 is misplaced. In those cases, absence of clear statutory guidance required us to fashion rules that were more properly the subject of legislation, and statutory ambiguities were construed in favor of criminal defendants. The legislature has now unambiguously embraced the policy advocated by the proponents of ORS 161.062. Therefore, to the extent that our case law is inconsistent with ORS 161.062, that statute controls and earlier case law is superseded. III. In order for ORS 161.062(1) to be applicable to a defendant's conduct, the following questions must be answered in the affirmative: (1) Did defendant engage in acts that are "the same conduct or criminal episode," (2) did defendant's acts violate two or more "statutory provisions," and (3) does each statutory "provision" require "proof of an element that the others do not." In this case, the answer to each question is "yes." First, defendant plainly engaged in a single criminal episode. That is not disputed. Second, consistent with the legislative intent to convict and sentence defendants on the range of multiple crimes committed, we interpret the term "two or more statutory provisions" to include prohibitions such as those in this case that address separate and distinct legislative concerns. ORS 163.375 provides three alternative combinations of elements that will constitute first degree rape. Each involves sexual intercourse and at least one element not involved in the others. ORS 163.375(1)(a) requires forcible compulsion; ORS 163.375(1)(b) requires that the victim be under 12 years of age; and ORS 163.375(1)(c) requires that the victim be a close family member and under 16. Our discussion of the statutory scheme for rape applies equally to the statutory scheme for sodomy. The language of the rape and sodomy statutes and the Criminal Law Revision Commission's commentary to those statutes establish that the statutory schemes for grading the various rape and sodomy offenses were intended to be identical. ORS 163.375(1)(a), the only alternative requiring forcible compulsion, is a clear statutory prohibition against forcing sex on any female. All other variations of first degree rape (as well as all variations of second and third degree rape) are similar to each other in that they accord special protection to specified groups of females by making sexual intercourse with one of them a crime even with "consent." ORS 163.375(1)(b) is a prohibition against sexual intercourse with females under 12; ORS 163.375(1)(c) is a prohibition against sexual intercourse with close female relatives under 16. Thus, each statutory alternative addresses a separate and distinct legislative concern, and each alternative is a separate statutory "provision" for purposes of ORS 161.062(1). Because they are separate provisions, defendant's argument that ORS 163.355 is a lesser included offense to first degree rape fails. ORS 163.355, prohibiting sexual intercourse with a female under 16 years of age, reflects the same kind of legislative concern as ORS 163.375(1)(b), an offense not charged here; it reflects a separate and distinct legislative concern from ORS 163.375(1)(a), the first degree rape alternative with which defendant is charged. Defendant points to the Criminal Law Revision Commission's commentary to the rape and sodomy statutes to the effect that the Commission intended to group these offenses into three degrees of severity. However, we do not find from the commentary that, by grading these offenses into first, second, and third degrees, the legislature intended to obviate the other differences *604 of the offenses for purposes of multiple convictions and sentences. With respect to the third statutory question, each statutory offense requires proof of a separate element. Each of the third degree crimes requires a finding that the victim is under 16 years of age, an element not necessary to prove the corresponding first degree crimes. The state must separately charge ORS 163.355 and prove a victim's age for a conviction under that statute. For this reason, ORS 163.355 is not a lesser included offense of ORS 163.375(1)(a), which has no age element. Each is a separate offense (or "statutory provision") for purposes of ORS 161.062(1). Accordingly, ORS 161.062 expressly authorizes the separate first and third degree convictions involved here. The same analysis applies to the sodomy convictions involved here: ORS 163.385 is not a lesser included offense of ORS 163.405(1)(a). In raping a 14-year-old girl, defendant violated two different prohibitions that the legislature has codified as separate criminal offenses. He forced his victim to engage in sex against her will, and he chose a victim to whom the legislature had accorded additional protection because of her age. Defendant argues, in effect, that his criminal record should be no different than if his victim had not been a child, that his "incidental" violation of additional laws should not subject him to additional sanction. The legislature has rejected that argument in clear and unambiguous language. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. NOTES [1] ORS 163.305(1) provides: "`Deviate sexual intercourse' means sexual contact between persons consisting of contact between the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another." ORS 163.355 provides "(1) A male commits the crime of rape in the third degree if he has sexual intercourse with a female under 16 years of age. "(2) Rape in the third degree is a Class C felony." ORS 163.385 provides: "(1) A person commits the crime of sodomy in the third degree if the person engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person under 16 years of age or causes that person to engage in deviate sexual intercourse. "(2) Sodomy in the third degree is a Class C felony." [2] ORS 163.375 provides: "(1) A person who has sexual intercourse with a female commits the crime of rape in the first degree if: "(a) The female is subjected to forcible compulsion by the male; or "(b) The female is under 12 years of age; or "(c) The female is under 16 years of age and is the male's sister, of the whole or half blood, his daughter or his wife's daughter. "(2) Rape in the first degree is a Class A felony." ORS 163.405 provides: "(1) A person who engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person or causes another to engage in deviate sexual intercourse commits the crime of sodomy in the first degree if: "(a) The victim is subjected to forcible compulsion by the actor; or "(b) The victim is under 12 years of age; or "(c) The victim is under 16 years of age and is the actor's brother or sister, of the whole or half blood, the son or daughter of the actor or the son or daughter of the actor's spouse. "(2) Sodomy in the first degree is a Class A felony." [3] ORS 161.062 and its not quite identical twin, ORS 161.067, have an intertwined and convoluted relationship. Both statutes began as identically worded proposals to the legislature and to the electorate, proposals which apparently derived from a common source. ORS 161.062 began as a provision of Senate Bill 257 (1985), proposed to the legislature by the Department of Justice on behalf of the Oregon District Attorneys Association. An identical proposal was included in the omnibus "Crime Victims' Bill of Rights" initiative filed with the Secretary of State in April 1985. The Secretary of state certified the initiative as Ballot Measure 10 (1986), the electorate approved it in November 1986, and it became effective in December 1986. Its multiple conviction and sentencing provision was codified as ORS 161.067. In May 1985, after the initiative had been filed with the Secretary of State, the legislature amended SB 257. In June 1985, the legislature enacted House Bill 2331 (1985), an identically worded House version of amended SB 257. HB 2331 became effective in July 1985 and was codified as ORS 161.062 and ORS 137.122. In effect, the original proposed multiple conviction and sentencing statute was enacted twice, first in an amended legislative version, ORS 161.062, and later in an unamended initiative version, ORS 161.067. Both statutes remain on the books. [4] In written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Senate Bill 257, Deputy Attorney General William Gary explained: "SB 257 [ORS 161.062 and ORS 137.122] would clearly and unequivocally express a legislative policy judgment that crimes committed in a single criminal episode should be recorded separately on a person's criminal record. A person who burglarizes a house and rapes the occupant may be convicted of both burglary and rape. A person who repeatedly sodomizes a victim may be convicted of separate crimes for each distinct act of sodomy. Under current law, in each of those instances, only one criminal conviction could be entered on the offender's record. The history of the offender's criminal conduct is literally rewritten by the Court by `merging' separate criminal acts into one big crime. SB 257 would halt this practice and ensure that a person's criminal record accurately reflects the number of crimes of which he or she has been judged guilty. "The judicial practice of `merging' criminal convictions has developed because of an absence of legislative guidance as to when a law violator should be subject to multiple punishments for separate criminal violations committed during a single criminal episode. SB 257 properly recognizes that the number of convictions that should be entered is (or should be) a wholly separate question from the appropriate sentence to be imposed for the entire course of conduct." [5] However, in authorizing multiple convictions and sentences arising out of a single criminal episode, the legislature took care to limit the circumstances in which the additional convictions authorized by ORS 161.062 could be the basis of consecutive sentencing. SB 257 and HB 2331 also contained a provision, codified as ORS 137.122, addressing the circumstances under which courts could impose consecutive sentences for multiple convictions from the same criminal episode: "(1) * * * The court may provide for consecutive terms of imprisonment only in accordance with the provisions of this section. * * * "* * * * * "(3) When a defendant has been found guilty of more than one criminal offense arising out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct, the sentences imposed for each resulting conviction shall be concurrent unless the court complies with the procedures set forth in subsection (4) of this section. "(4) The court has discretion to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment for separate convictions arising out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct only if the court finds: "(a) The criminal offense for which a consecutive sentence is contemplated was not merely an incidental violation of a separate statutory provision in the course of the commission of a more serious crime; or "(b) The criminal offense for which a consecutive sentence is contemplated caused or created a substantial risk of causing greater or qualitatively different loss, injury or harm to the victim or caused or created a substantial risk of causing loss, injury or harm to a different victim than was caused or threatened by the other offense or offenses committed during a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct." ORS 137.123, enacted as part of the "Crime Victims' Bill of Rights," relates to ORS 137.122 in the same way that ORS 161.067 relates to ORS 161.062. ORS 137.123 is a consecutive sentencing statute similar to the original proposed sentencing statute in SB 257. As in the case of ORS 161.062, the legislature amended the original consecutive sentencing provision of SB 257 after the "Crime Victims' Bill of Rights" initiative had been filed with the Secretary of State. ORS 137.122 and ORS 137.123 have identical exclusivity clauses ("The court may provide for consecutive terms of imprisonment only in accordance with the provisions of this section").

Judge Judy SCREAMS at Jasmine Crockett on Live TV — Jasmine’s Cold Respo...

Frohnmayer threatens defamation suit

https://uomatters.com/2011/06/frohnmayer-threatens-defamation-suit.html Frohnmayer threatens defamation suit By uomatters on 06/11/2011 6/9/2011: UO Matters has put up a few posts about the SOS Audit Division investigation of UO President Emeritus Dave Frohnmayer’s peculiar golden parachute contracts with OUS and UO. Now he’s threatening us with a defamation lawsuit and “a claim for punitive damages.” From: “Dave Frohnmayer” Date: June 8, 2011 3:16:49 PM PDT To: (Professor X) Subject: Re: public records request, Frohnmayer, Grier contracts and job descriptions Dear Professor X and Colleagues: A cursory call to the Oregon Secretary of State confirms that the Audits Division is NOT “currently investigating” my contractual arrangements. Professor X’s assertion, as he has communicated it, is actionable as defamation per se, and in view of his course of conduct in recent years, likely subject to proof of actual malice that could justify a claim for punitive damages. Dave Frohnmayer Sent from my iPhone Dave’s an awesome texter, for an old guy. I’d have cooled off and thought better of sending this before I’d pecked out half as much spittle. Update: In fairness to Frohnmayer, from what I’ve been able to piece together on this so far it appears the Audit Division had not told him they were looking into his contracts. They also apparently hadn’t told Secretary of State Kate Brown. So, presumably, when Dave called her she said something like “I’ve never heard of this” and he ran with that. An honest mistake, and UO Matters has no plans to seek punitive damages from Professor Frohnmayer, despite his course of conduct in recent years. We just want him to explain his special retirement and sabbatical deals, and repay the retroactive summer salary Russ gave him.

Frohnmayer threatens defamation suit

https://uomatters.com/2011/06/frohnmayer-threatens-defamation-suit.html#comment-438539

Frohnmayer threatens defamation suit

https://uomatters.com/2011/06/frohnmayer-threatens-defamation-suit.html By uomatters on 06/11/2011 6/9/2011: UO Matters has put up a few posts about the SOS Audit Division investigation of UO President Emeritus Dave Frohnmayer’s peculiar golden parachute contracts with OUS and UO. Now he’s threatening us with a defamation lawsuit and “a claim for punitive damages.” From: “Dave Frohnmayer” Date: June 8, 2011 3:16:49 PM PDT To: (Professor X) Subject: Re: public records request, Frohnmayer, Grier contracts and job descriptions Dear Professor X and Colleagues: A cursory call to the Oregon Secretary of State confirms that the Audits Division is NOT “currently investigating” my contractual arrangements. Professor X’s assertion, as he has communicated it, is actionable as defamation per se, and in view of his course of conduct in recent years, likely subject to proof of actual malice that could justify a claim for punitive damages. Dave Frohnmayer Sent from my iPhone Dave’s an awesome texter, for an old guy. I’d have cooled off and thought better of sending this before I’d pecked out half as much spittle. Update: In fairness to Frohnmayer, from what I’ve been able to piece together on this so far it appears the Audit Division had not told him they were looking into his contracts. They also apparently hadn’t told Secretary of State Kate Brown. So, presumably, when Dave called her she said something like “I’ve never heard of this” and he ran with that. An honest mistake, and UO Matters has no plans to seek punitive damages from Professor Frohnmayer, despite his course of conduct in recent years. We just want him to explain his special retirement and sabbatical deals, and repay the retroactive summer salary Russ gave him. DefamationFrohnmayer salary and perks uomatters 2 Comments Anonymous 06/10/2011 Wow. Must of touched a nerve. Reply Anonymous 06/10/2011 Imagine that, publicly stated misinformation touching a nerve. Give it up guys.

Reputation For Rent

https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-21195-reputation-for-rent.html Once-secret testimony reveals Dave Frohnmayer was a paid witness for big tobacco against the state of Oregon. Expand By NIGEL JAQUISS September 24, 2013 at 5:01 pm PDT There may be no résumé in Oregon public life more impressive than the one that belongs to Dave Frohnmayer. Rhodes scholar, state attorney general, University of Oregon president: Frohnmayer is regarded not only as one of the state's top legal minds but as someone who has fought for the public interest in venues ranging from the Oregon Legislature to the U.S. Supreme Court. But Frohnmayer recently played another role far from the spotlight, as revealed in once-secret testimony in a major legal case against the state. In that case, major tobacco companies challenged the state of Oregon's right to continue receiving payments under a massive tobacco industry settlement. And the star witness and paid expert for Big Tobacco against the state of Oregon: Dave Frohnmayer. In April, Frohnmayer appeared as an expert witness on behalf of the tobacco companies in front of a closed-door arbitration panel in Chicago. The Oregon Department of Justice released Frohnmayer's testimony to WW in response to a public records request. In an interview, Frohnmayer tells WW he simply provided what he says was unbiased, objective testimony. And he says he would have provided the same testimony had he instead been hired by the state of Oregon or called by the three-judge panel as an independent witness. But neither of those things happened; instead, Frohnmayer appeared as a paid witness for tobacco firms trying to get out of making payments to the state of Oregon under the tobacco settlement reached more than a decade ago. Frohnmayer's testimony reinforced the tobacco companies' claims against the state. Frohnmayer says his testimony for the tobacco companies was squarely in the public's interest, because his contention was that the state could have enforced the settlement more aggressively against smaller tobacco companies. "I testified that the powers of the Oregon attorney general are expansive," Frohnmayer says. "That's totally consistent with my public service from the day I entered the Legislature." In 1998, seven major tobacco companies—including Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, and Lorillard—reached a $206 billion settlement with 46 states that had sued to recover tobacco-related health-care costs borne by taxpayers. Frohnmayer, then UO president, was named to a three-member panel to decide how some of the money should be divvied up. As its share of the settlement, Oregon would get about $80 million a year for 25 years. But smaller tobacco companies didn't take part in the settlement. Instead, they agreed to pay into escrow accounts in states where they sold products. Those payments were supposed to level the playing field by reducing the smaller players' ability to undercut the big companies and create reserves for future settlements. In 2006, Big Tobacco accused all the states, including Oregon, of failing to enforce the smaller companies' part of the settlement and withheld partial payment. Since then, Oregon officials have been fighting to get the full tobacco settlement payments reinstated. "We could have given up $80 million a year," says Oregon DOJ spokesman Jeff Manning. "The downside risk for the state was enormous." The dispute between states and Big Tobacco went to an arbitration hearing on April 26. And that's where Frohnmayer took the stand for the tobacco companies. Frohnmayer served as Oregon attorney general from 1981 through 1991 after three terms in the Oregon House. He lost the 1990 governor's race to Democrat Barbara Roberts and later became dean of the UO School of Law. In 1994, he became president of the university, where he oversaw 15 years of rapid growth. Frohnmayer now works for the Eugene law firm of Harrang Long Gary Rudnick, which has represented Philip Morris in the past. He bills as much as $550 an hour (but declined to say how much tobacco companies paid him to testify). In addition, he gets a $257,000 annual pension from the Public Employees Retirement System and $101,000 a year as a part-time law professor at UO. (Harrang Long is also UO's law firm, billing $647,000 since March 2012.) His testimony began with highlights of his long legal and political career. The tobacco industry attorney noted that Frohnmayer as AG won six out of seven cases he argued before the U.S. Supreme Court—a record unmatched by his peers. Big Tobacco's lawyers were keen to prove that the state of Oregon had failed to exercise all of its power to go after payments from the small tobacco companies. The state, meanwhile, said it had indeed gone after smaller companies and had used all its authority under the law to do so. State officials said that in order to do more to regulate tobacco sales, they would need the Legislature to grant them new powers. Frohnmayer's testimony backed up Big Tobacco's claim that the state had all the authority it needed. "And what did you conclude, professor, with regard to these specific measures that you identified?" asked Kevin Schwartz of the New York firm Wachtell Lipton, one of the tobacco companies' attorneys. "I concluded that Oregon did possess the powers that were in question," Frohnmayer replied. He added that he had not reached a conclusion about the state's actions under the tobacco settlement. "And are you offering any opinion on whether Oregon was obligated in some way to take these particular measures?" Schwartz asked. "No, I am not." Frohnmayer replied. On cross-examination, the state's attorney, David Markowitz, pressed the argument that the state of Oregon had followed the same legal precedents in the tobacco case as it had when Frohnmayer was attorney general. Markowitz also attacked Frohnmayer's claims of neutrality. He noted that Frohnmayer's law firm represents Philip Morris in two large, long-running lawsuits. In one case, a Multnomah County jury awarded the estate of a deceased janitor $79.5 million. Philip Morris' appeal ground on for 14 years, finally concluding with a verdict for the plaintiff last year. The state gets 60 percent of such awards. But Frohnmayer's firm argued Oregon's share should be covered by money paid under the tobacco industry settlement. Frohnmayer testified that he had helped Harrang Long lawyers prepare appellate arguments on behalf of Philip Morris but had no other involvement in his law firm's tobacco cases. Markowitz noted another lawsuit against the state of Oregon in which Frohnmayer was intimately involved: the case of Mark Long, the former Energy Department director who was criminally investigated for allegedly steering a public contract to Cylvia Hayes, Gov. John Kitzhaber's companion. Long was cleared of wrongdoing. The Harrang Long firm—founded in part by Mark Long's father, Stan Long, a former deputy to Frohnmayer—filed a $7.5 million suit against the state on behalf of Mark Long. (The state has since settled the case for $1 million.) In an interview with WW, Frohnmayer says the points Markowitz raised were "irrelevant" and insists he had no interest in whether the tobacco companies or the state of Oregon prevailed—even though the tobacco companies were paying for his testimony. "I expressed no view on whether the state of Oregon should win or lose," Frohnmayer says. On Sept. 10, the trial panel sided with the state of Oregon against the tobacco companies and ordered the companies to reimburse the state $9 million in withheld payments. Frohnmayer's decision to work for Big Tobacco in this case is now being questioned by veteran Oregon lawyers who agreed to review his testimony at WW's request. “I’m a huge fan of Dave Frohnmayer, so this puzzles me,” says Dan Skerritt, a partner at the Tonkon Torp firm. “The range of the tobacco companies' behavior has been documented as somewhere between fraudulent and disingenuous for decades. I'm interested to hear Mr. Frohnmayer's explanation why he decided to testify for them." Bob Stoll, a founder of the Stoll Berne law firm, which has sued Big Tobacco in the past, echoes Skerritt's concern. "It's disappointing that somebody with such a stellar reputation would use that reputation for money from such a reprehensible industry,” Stoll says. The state, he adds, is better off for the verdict the panel reached, but Frohnmayer's reputation is not. "His testimony is something that could have hurt the state for which he's done so much, and it could have had enormous financial costs to the state for years to come," Stoll says. Frohnmayer says he thinks his critics lack context. "I'm surprised they would say that," he says. "It's odd for lawyers to opine about a case they're not involved in." WWeek 2015 Willamette Week’s reporting has concrete impacts that change laws, force action from civic leaders, and drive compromised politicians from public office. Support WW's journalism today.

UO economics professor files complaint against UO general counsel and lawyers

https://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-30557-state-bar-dimisses-uo-professors-complaint-against-lawyers-involved-in-the-energy-department-investigation.html Sami Edge June 11, 2013 Last week, University of Oregon economics professor Bill Harbaugh filed a complaint with the Oregon State Bar, alleging Eugene lawyers Bill Gary and Sharon Rudnick misled a judge. Gary and Rudnick are partners at the Harrang Long Gary Rudnick law firm, which has been representing the UO administration in recent union negotiations. The bar complaint (PDF) also alleges UO General Counsel Randy Geller of participating in the deceit by “use(ing) his public office” to withhold — and circumvent attempts to claim — public records regarding the event. The accusations pertain to a circumstance in which Harbaugh believes the law firm was rewarded recompense in legal fees they were unable to accrue after suing the office of the attorney general for the mishandling of public records during a contract investigation that involved the son of Stan Long, who is one of HLGR’s founders. After reviewing the case, a county judge mandated a $500,000 reimbursement to be paid to Long for fees he incurred while prosecuting his public records lawsuit. The judge added an extra 10 percent to the reimbursement for the positive impact the case made toward the handling of public records, making the total reimbursement $550,000. According to Harbaugh, the issue lies in the numbers. Dave Frohnmayer — former UO president and current law professor working for HLGR — was compensated for his work at $550 an hour. Based on UO records, his legal fees in UO-related work range from $260-$270 per hour. According to HLGR, Frohnmayer’s standard legal fee for non-government clients is $550. However, HLGR offers a “significantly discounted” hourly rate for the university. Harbaugh claims the increased rate described to the judge led to an exorbitantly high pay-out for missed opportunities. In an email to Willamette Week, Portland’s alt-weekly paper, Gary claimed the fee difference instead stems from a discount agreement between HLGR and the UO — not an attempt to circumvent the Department of Justice. “The Firm sometimes considers alternative fee arrangements based upon the nature or volume of work involved,” he wrote. “The Firm has agreed to perform work for the University at discounted rates. We are not aware of anyone other than Dr. Harbaugh who has expressed concern about our willingness to provide a discount to the University.” Where the UO General Counsel is concerned, Harbaugh claims the affidavit Geller presented in support of HLGR’s claim for legal fees was inaccurate and a conflict of interest. In the affidavit, Geller argues for the compensation of HLGR due to the opportunity they lost when he was unable to hire them to represent the UO in legal matters because of their participation in the original investigation. The affidavit was signed in July of 2012. HLGR had been participating in UO union negotiations for the UO since February 2013. Geller justified his statements in an email to Willamette Week, claiming that although HLGR was contracted to work on union matters in February — an issue that does not require state approval for choice of legal firm — he was unable to hire them to work on other state-regulated issues further along in the year because of the investigation case. Harbaugh filed the complaint in an attempt to generate a critical review of the general counsel’s affairs. “UO’s General Counsel and the HLGR attorneys worked together to try and get $860,000 for HLGR, from state taxpayers,” he said. “I thought that it was wrong for Randy Geller to go along with Bill Gary’s attempt to get that money, by not telling the judge about the substantial legal work he’d given HLGR on the faculty union. That seems pretty far below ‘the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’…I wanted the bar to decide if these actions were ethical.” Willamette Week reports that the the Bar is considering the complaint.

https://nadiasindi.blogspot.com/2024/12/someone-sued-dave-frohnmayer-and-won.html?m=1

https://nadiasindi.blogspot.com/2024/12/someone-sued-dave-frohnmayer-and-won.html?m=1 The Writings and Thoughts of Nadia Sindi Sunday, December 29, 2024 Someone Sued Dave Frohnmayer. and won a settlement Yes, someone sued Dave Frohnmayer, the former Oregon Attorney General, and won a settlement: [1, 2] • Whistleblower settlement: A Portland-area man won a reported seven-figure whistleblower settlement from Wells Fargo after Frohnmayer blocked his Social Security number and prevented him from getting a job. Frohnmayer was also involved in a lawsuit over the incorporation of Rajneeshpuram, a communal city near Antelope, Oregon. In 1983, Frohnmayer issued an opinion and lawsuit challenging the city's incorporation, citing violations of the separation of church and state. In 1985, U.S. District Court Judge Helen Frye ruled in favor of Oregon, invalidating the status of Rajneeshpuram. [1] Generative AI is experimental. [1] https://international.uoregon.edu/rajneeshees-oregon-communal-experiment[2] https://www.wweek.com/news/business/2018/03/25/portland-area-man-wins-reported-seven-figure-whistleblower-settlement-from-wells-fargo/ Not all images can be exported from Search. Nadia Sindi at Sunday, December 29, 2024

Samuel v. Frohnmayer

https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/court-of-appeals/1989/770-p-2d-914.html

https://www.blogger.com/profile/06255957339056725834

https://www.blogger.com/profile/06255957339056725834 I ran five times for Public offices. Each time I was defrauded by Voter Fraud! It was committed by the Lane County Criminal Officials, who are complicit with the dangerous criminal, above the law, Tyrant, anarchist former A.G. Dave Frohnmayer! 2003 for LCC Board.I got %48.9. Later it was changed to 30% by the Lane County Criminal Officials! 2005 for 4J School Board: http://www.nadiasindi.blogspot.com 2008 for Lane County Commissioner seat: http://www.nadiasindi.110mb.com. Was given to Handy, the most inept, unfit, to serve. Later he was locked out of his office for his unethical misconduct! 2010 for the City Council:Mayor 4 all kinds of corruption Piercy blatantly, dismissed my candidacy from Day one http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nadia-Sindi-for-City-Councilor-Ward-5/243499929774?v=photos&ref=ts#!/pages/Nadia-Sindi-for-City-Councilor-Ward-5/243499929774?v=wall 2012 for Lane County Commissioner N. Seat. It was given Pat Farr who was arrested for DUI ! Oregon Representative for: www.StudentLoanJustice.Org Government Liaison, Facilitator, Conflict Resolution. Interpreter/Translator.

Once-secret testimony reveals Dave Frohnmayer was a paid witness for big tobacco against the state of Oregon.

https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-21195-reputation-for-rent.html Reputation For Rent Once-secret testimony reveals Dave Frohnmayer was a paid witness for big tobacco against the state of Oregon. Expand By NIGEL JAQUISS September 24, 2013 at 5:01 pm PDT There may be no résumé in Oregon public life more impressive than the one that belongs to Dave Frohnmayer. Rhodes scholar, state attorney general, University of Oregon president: Frohnmayer is regarded not only as one of the state's top legal minds but as someone who has fought for the public interest in venues ranging from the Oregon Legislature to the U.S. Supreme Court. But Frohnmayer recently played another role far from the spotlight, as revealed in once-secret testimony in a major legal case against the state. In that case, major tobacco companies challenged the state of Oregon's right to continue receiving payments under a massive tobacco industry settlement. And the star witness and paid expert for Big Tobacco against the state of Oregon: Dave Frohnmayer. In April, Frohnmayer appeared as an expert witness on behalf of the tobacco companies in front of a closed-door arbitration panel in Chicago. The Oregon Department of Justice released Frohnmayer's testimony to WW in response to a public records request. In an interview, Frohnmayer tells WW he simply provided what he says was unbiased, objective testimony. And he says he would have provided the same testimony had he instead been hired by the state of Oregon or called by the three-judge panel as an independent witness. But neither of those things happened; instead, Frohnmayer appeared as a paid witness for tobacco firms trying to get out of making payments to the state of Oregon under the tobacco settlement reached more than a decade ago. Frohnmayer's testimony reinforced the tobacco companies' claims against the state. Frohnmayer says his testimony for the tobacco companies was squarely in the public's interest, because his contention was that the state could have enforced the settlement more aggressively against smaller tobacco companies. "I testified that the powers of the Oregon attorney general are expansive," Frohnmayer says. "That's totally consistent with my public service from the day I entered the Legislature." In 1998, seven major tobacco companies—including Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, and Lorillard—reached a $206 billion settlement with 46 states that had sued to recover tobacco-related health-care costs borne by taxpayers. Frohnmayer, then UO president, was named to a three-member panel to decide how some of the money should be divvied up. As its share of the settlement, Oregon would get about $80 million a year for 25 years. But smaller tobacco companies didn't take part in the settlement. Instead, they agreed to pay into escrow accounts in states where they sold products. Those payments were supposed to level the playing field by reducing the smaller players' ability to undercut the big companies and create reserves for future settlements. In 2006, Big Tobacco accused all the states, including Oregon, of failing to enforce the smaller companies' part of the settlement and withheld partial payment. Since then, Oregon officials have been fighting to get the full tobacco settlement payments reinstated. "We could have given up $80 million a year," says Oregon DOJ spokesman Jeff Manning. "The downside risk for the state was enormous." The dispute between states and Big Tobacco went to an arbitration hearing on April 26. And that's where Frohnmayer took the stand for the tobacco companies. Frohnmayer served as Oregon attorney general from 1981 through 1991 after three terms in the Oregon House. He lost the 1990 governor's race to Democrat Barbara Roberts and later became dean of the UO School of Law. In 1994, he became president of the university, where he oversaw 15 years of rapid growth. Frohnmayer now works for the Eugene law firm of Harrang Long Gary Rudnick, which has represented Philip Morris in the past. He bills as much as $550 an hour (but declined to say how much tobacco companies paid him to testify). In addition, he gets a $257,000 annual pension from the Public Employees Retirement System and $101,000 a year as a part-time law professor at UO. (Harrang Long is also UO's law firm, billing $647,000 since March 2012.) His testimony began with highlights of his long legal and political career. The tobacco industry attorney noted that Frohnmayer as AG won six out of seven cases he argued before the U.S. Supreme Court—a record unmatched by his peers. Big Tobacco's lawyers were keen to prove that the state of Oregon had failed to exercise all of its power to go after payments from the small tobacco companies. The state, meanwhile, said it had indeed gone after smaller companies and had used all its authority under the law to do so. State officials said that in order to do more to regulate tobacco sales, they would need the Legislature to grant them new powers. Frohnmayer's testimony backed up Big Tobacco's claim that the state had all the authority it needed. "And what did you conclude, professor, with regard to these specific measures that you identified?" asked Kevin Schwartz of the New York firm Wachtell Lipton, one of the tobacco companies' attorneys. "I concluded that Oregon did possess the powers that were in question," Frohnmayer replied. He added that he had not reached a conclusion about the state's actions under the tobacco settlement. "And are you offering any opinion on whether Oregon was obligated in some way to take these particular measures?" Schwartz asked. "No, I am not." Frohnmayer replied. On cross-examination, the state's attorney, David Markowitz, pressed the argument that the state of Oregon had followed the same legal precedents in the tobacco case as it had when Frohnmayer was attorney general. Markowitz also attacked Frohnmayer's claims of neutrality. He noted that Frohnmayer's law firm represents Philip Morris in two large, long-running lawsuits. In one case, a Multnomah County jury awarded the estate of a deceased janitor $79.5 million. Philip Morris' appeal ground on for 14 years, finally concluding with a verdict for the plaintiff last year. The state gets 60 percent of such awards. But Frohnmayer's firm argued Oregon's share should be covered by money paid under the tobacco industry settlement. Frohnmayer testified that he had helped Harrang Long lawyers prepare appellate arguments on behalf of Philip Morris but had no other involvement in his law firm's tobacco cases. Markowitz noted another lawsuit against the state of Oregon in which Frohnmayer was intimately involved: the case of Mark Long, the former Energy Department director who was criminally investigated for allegedly steering a public contract to Cylvia Hayes, Gov. John Kitzhaber's companion. Long was cleared of wrongdoing. The Harrang Long firm—founded in part by Mark Long's father, Stan Long, a former deputy to Frohnmayer—filed a $7.5 million suit against the state on behalf of Mark Long. (The state has since settled the case for $1 million.) In an interview with WW, Frohnmayer says the points Markowitz raised were "irrelevant" and insists he had no interest in whether the tobacco companies or the state of Oregon prevailed—even though the tobacco companies were paying for his testimony. "I expressed no view on whether the state of Oregon should win or lose," Frohnmayer says. On Sept. 10, the trial panel sided with the state of Oregon against the tobacco companies and ordered the companies to reimburse the state $9 million in withheld payments. Frohnmayer's decision to work for Big Tobacco in this case is now being questioned by veteran Oregon lawyers who agreed to review his testimony at WW's request. “I’m a huge fan of Dave Frohnmayer, so this puzzles me,” says Dan Skerritt, a partner at the Tonkon Torp firm. “The range of the tobacco companies' behavior has been documented as somewhere between fraudulent and disingenuous for decades. I'm interested to hear Mr. Frohnmayer's explanation why he decided to testify for them." Bob Stoll, a founder of the Stoll Berne law firm, which has sued Big Tobacco in the past, echoes Skerritt's concern. "It's disappointing that somebody with such a stellar reputation would use that reputation for money from such a reprehensible industry,” Stoll says. The state, he adds, is better off for the verdict the panel reached, but Frohnmayer's reputation is not. "His testimony is something that could have hurt the state for which he's done so much, and it could have had enormous financial costs to the state for years to come," Stoll says. Frohnmayer says he thinks his critics lack context. "I'm surprised they would say that," he says. "It's odd for lawyers to opine about a case they're not involved in." WWeek 2015

UO economics professor files complaint against UO general counsel and lawyers

https://dailyemerald.com/43226/news/uo-economics-professor-files-complaint-against-uo-general-counsel-and-lawyers/?return UO economics professor files complaint against UO general counsel and lawyers Sami Edge June 11, 2013 Last week, University of Oregon economics professor Bill Harbaugh filed a complaint with the Oregon State Bar, alleging Eugene lawyers Bill Gary and Sharon Rudnick misled a judge. Gary and Rudnick are partners at the Harrang Long Gary Rudnick law firm, which has been representing the UO administration in recent union negotiations. The bar complaint (PDF) also alleges UO General Counsel Randy Geller of participating in the deceit by “use(ing) his public office” to withhold — and circumvent attempts to claim — public records regarding the event. The accusations pertain to a circumstance in which Harbaugh believes the law firm was rewarded recompense in legal fees they were unable to accrue after suing the office of the attorney general for the mishandling of public records during a contract investigation that involved the son of Stan Long, who is one of HLGR’s founders. After reviewing the case, a county judge mandated a $500,000 reimbursement to be paid to Long for fees he incurred while prosecuting his public records lawsuit. The judge added an extra 10 percent to the reimbursement for the positive impact the case made toward the handling of public records, making the total reimbursement $550,000. According to Harbaugh, the issue lies in the numbers. Dave Frohnmayer — former UO president and current law professor working for HLGR — was compensated for his work at $550 an hour. Based on UO records, his legal fees in UO-related work range from $260-$270 per hour. According to HLGR, Frohnmayer’s standard legal fee for non-government clients is $550. However, HLGR offers a “significantly discounted” hourly rate for the university. Harbaugh claims the increased rate described to the judge led to an exorbitantly high pay-out for missed opportunities. In an email to Willamette Week, Portland’s alt-weekly paper, Gary claimed the fee difference instead stems from a discount agreement between HLGR and the UO — not an attempt to circumvent the Department of Justice. “The Firm sometimes considers alternative fee arrangements based upon the nature or volume of work involved,” he wrote. “The Firm has agreed to perform work for the University at discounted rates. We are not aware of anyone other than Dr. Harbaugh who has expressed concern about our willingness to provide a discount to the University.” Where the UO General Counsel is concerned, Harbaugh claims the affidavit Geller presented in support of HLGR’s claim for legal fees was inaccurate and a conflict of interest. In the affidavit, Geller argues for the compensation of HLGR due to the opportunity they lost when he was unable to hire them to represent the UO in legal matters because of their participation in the original investigation. The affidavit was signed in July of 2012. HLGR had been participating in UO union negotiations for the UO since February 2013. Geller justified his statements in an email to Willamette Week, claiming that although HLGR was contracted to work on union matters in February — an issue that does not require state approval for choice of legal firm — he was unable to hire them to work on other state-regulated issues further along in the year because of the investigation case. Harbaugh filed the complaint in an attempt to generate a critical review of the general counsel’s affairs. “UO’s General Counsel and the HLGR attorneys worked together to try and get $860,000 for HLGR, from state taxpayers,” he said. “I thought that it was wrong for Randy Geller to go along with Bill Gary’s attempt to get that money, by not telling the judge about the substantial legal work he’d given HLGR on the faculty union. That seems pretty far below ‘the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’…I wanted the bar to decide if these actions were ethical.” Willamette Week reports that the the Bar is considering the complaint.