Chapter 55 – My Lawsuit For Racketeering

I decided to add racketeering to the lawsuit against Marshall, the OSB and several John Does (who have not as yet been identified). I was on the fence about this initially but once I learned that the Oregon State Bar is picking up the tab for Marshall and Christiansen, aiding and abetting conformation was realized. When that happened, the historic collusion between Marshall and John Does becomes a short step for racketeering.

As the name suggests, racketeering is a term that typically denotes criminal activity of a group of people engaged in illegal activities. Whether our racketeers rise to the level of a criminal enterprise will be decided, but at a minimum the acts necessary to make these allegations exist.

The acts identified in Oregon as racketeering include perjury, bribery, false evidence, coercion, witness tampering, obstructing justice and perverting the  judicial process. There are many others but those listed above are the most relevant. I did not add Joel to this action. He’s not guilt of this. His legal fees may be paid by Silicon Valley Bank, but they are not a party here an he is a racketeer as to M.


Until next time.



Chapter 54 – Why Cybersecurity Incidents Are Legal Events

Business Cyber Risk Blog

In this video, cybersecurity and data protection attorney Shawn Tuma explains why cybersecurity incidents are as much legal events as they are information technology and business / public relations events.

View original post 64 more words

Chapter 53 – Protecting Employee and Employer are Equally Important

In this ever growing litigation area of protecting the employee from retaliation from some adverse action, we would be remiss as a society to not consider the importance of also protecting the employer. In Oregon, one of the protected acts of an employee is filing a complaint with the police, department of justice, etc., about a criminal act of public concern provided that the complaint is made in good faith. In many states that protected behavior is expanding to include complaints to management, which to me makes a lot of sense.

Borrowing data from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), only 2 % of complaints result is some action against the employer. And so we can surmise that the employees’ interest in, perhaps, striking a blow against an employer or former employer is determined to be unfounded 98% of the time. Now does that mean that 98% of the time the employee made a complaint in bad faith? No, but it is likely conclusion that a lot of the complaints were made in bad faith or based on bad facts.

By extension employers can be sued over any perceived adverse employment action when an employee make a goof faith complaint. The problem with the term good faith complaint is that it is not well defined. Is an employee that files a complaint, based on evidence he claims to have, enough to be considered good faith, particularly when it turns our there is no evidence? Or when the evidence was fabricated by the employee, but the complaint itself raises credible public concerns? Or when the employee intentionally thwarted the employers effort to find the evidence when performing a good faith investigation?

This is an area where an arbitrator has a lot of discretion, perhaps too much. An arbitrator could  determine that an employee did not make a good faith complaint based on the evidence or could decide from his perspective that all complaints are made in good faith, measuring it from the employees perception of reality and standards as opposed to what may well be a more educated view. The standard’s simply too subjective and too low. And because that threshold is so low, attorneys take advantage of that.

There’s been an explosion of these lawsuits.  I can imagine that when the law was first proposed and eventually enacted that the Oregon State Bar and The Trial lawyers group knew this would be good for business. The Bar is in the business of expanding the interests of its members, which logically is expanding the franchise of law…more lawsuits, more compliance, more consulting, more contracts. Attorneys don’t pan for gold. They don’t create anything new. They make their money by earning it or taking it from you and me, principally business and wealthy individuals.

The analysis in my company’s case with its former employee “M” lends itself to some version of the if…then analysis. So lets go through that in the context of retaliation complaints and litigation abuse.

1.If M was terminated before he made the complaint to the ODJ or management, then it was not an action that is retaliation and we should not have been forced to endure this seven year lawsuit. Our evidence showing that M was terminated before he filed his complaint was overwhelming and in our favor. No legal action should have been taken. In spite of this evidence, which was offered to opposing counsel early on, the lawsuit was still filed. And our motions to dismiss the case were denied by the Arbitrator.

But lets assume for our analysis that there was no strong evidence that M was fired before his complaint.

2. If there was no complaint to the police or ODJ, then there is no retaliation. If there is a good faith complaint and adverse action was taken against the employee, there is retaliation. And there was a complaint. If the government body receiving the complaint requests the evidence supporting the complaint and no such evidence was provided, then I would conclude that there is no good faith complaint. Is that a false assumption? Maybe. I can imagine that needs to be determined in context. For example if an employee complained to a government body about radiation leakage because of observed failed procedures that could put thousands of lives at risk, there may be no body of evidence readily available to the employee. I can see that context getting a nod for safety. However, if an employee makes a claim that he was fired because he called the police when observing his boss driving 55.25 miles per hour in a 55 mph zone, then I think the context on that and conclusion is it simply does not meet a good faith belief or standard. Even if the employee took a photo of a speedometer, it still does not meet a reasonable public concern standard. And if that same employee took the photo and claimed he would provide it but does not, then it fails the good faith standard. And if he provided it to the police but the speedometer shot was not that of the boss’ car, then it fails. My point is that these nuances have a way of becoming unbelievably silly and yet are real complaints and often survive through a trial or arbitration putting an unfair burden on the Defendant.

But lets assume the good faith standard was met and the employee caused some damage.

3.If the employee takes retaliation action of his own and damages the employer before or after the claimed retaliation, then the employee damages should be cut off. Action was taken to harm  us. Therefore the damages should have been cut off. So lets use an example of where  a farm employee makes a claim for unsafe working conditions and was fired. He’s going to file a lawsuit. He’s given a weeks notice and on his last day sets the barn on  fire. The employee was paid up to the time he set the barn on fire. He makes a claim for $500,000 in lost wages for the rest of his life. The farmer says you set the barn on fire and we owe you nothing. That should be correct. The employer has rights too. In our case, we went down for a week after M left, costing us more than a barn…$100,000. So the only way M gets past this is for the arbitrator to determine that he did not set the barn on fire as it were. When you present five witnesses as we did, among them software engineers and forensic experts who say he did, then even under the worst of conditions we should have won our damages. We did not.

There is no one keeping the arbitrator in check. Did Crow do it for Marshall? Did he do it because he was asked to? There’s more to this story, but the message to you is that arbitration is too dangerous because the standard for reversal is too low. You don’t get to present facts about the case when asking a court to vacate or amend an arbitration award.

Arbitrators understand that the more lawsuits that are filed the more they stand to make and for it all to work the attorneys filing the lawsuits must win often enough to support this infrastructure of players; so, you the employer must lose a lot more than you win. That’s the game. Choose not to play by avoiding arbitration. Mediate, but don’t arbitrate.

Until next time.




Chapter 52 – If…then

If, then is a conditional statement (also called an if-then statement) and in this case is a statement with a hypothesis followed by a conclusion. The hypothesis is the first, or “if,” part of a conditional statement. The conclusion is the second, or “then,” part of a conditional statement. The conclusion is the result of a hypothesis.

But as in any logical statement, a false or weak statement “if” statement will lead to an equally false conclusion statement. So if you say if If I am in California, then I am at Disneyland. That is False. I could be in San Francisco.

Or If I am not at Disneyland, then I am not in California.False. Again, I could be in San Francisco. SO lets use some of these if then statements in the context of Marshall, M, and Christiansen’s activity.Lets call them the M group.

If the M group wanted Judge Jones intervention then they would communicate with him. True. They would need to communicate with him or have someone else do so. If they did not want his intervention, they would not communicate with him. Also true. If they wanted Judge Jones to stay out of it then then would not bring the blog to his attention.

If only 5 unique people read my post Chapter 19 then one of the 5 communicated to Judge Jones or caused someone else to do so. True statement provided that one of the five is not Judge Jones.

If Judge Jones was one of the 5 readers of he would not have told the U.S. Marshals service that someone brought this to his attention. Could be true but then Judge Jones could have been lying about that. If he was lying about that then he was one of the 5 readers.

The Blog was not being indexed or marketed and a search for Judge Jones at that time would not have provided a link to the blog. The only links were to Marshall, “M” and the aribtrator. Marshall was the first to notify me that M ad found the blog and found my posts Defamatory.

If Judge Jones found the blog on his own then he would have been searching for Marshall, M or the aribtrator. I think that unlikely. If that is not true, then one of the 5 readers notified Judge Jones.

If someone notified Judge Jones, they would have some reason for doing so. True. What was the reason. The post was not a threat and someone needs to create the allegation that the post was a threat.

If someone wanted to create a false image of a threat, then they would do so for a reason. Seems logical that one of the 5 would not take the risk of making a false claim without something to gain.

The original 5 readers of the blog are me, Marshall, M, Ware & Christiansen. Essentially me and the M group.

But there is a little twist. The blog stats data provided by wordpress show that there are only 6 views of the post from the date of its writing. And on November 12, 2015, the day I posted it only one person viewed the post. Only One! And it wasn’t me.

If on November 12, 2015 only one person viewed the post then that person and or his agent contacted Judge Jones’ chamber. The M group.

The M group is not only guilty of contacting Judge Jones, but they are particularly guilty of twisting the meaning of the post suggesting a threat. More importantly in order to make that twist of meaning they wanted to get something out of it. And that was to Defame me or retaliate against me for writing this blog and to enlist the help of the US District Court.

While the retaliation intent is clear, I want to make sure the readers understand that the only reason Judge Jones ever entered consideration in the blog is because Marshall brought him in during the arbitration imploring the arbitrator to find in their favor because of a prior ruling and issue with Judge Jones. But in the larger message there is more and that was in the form of an instruction to the arbitrator to do as Marshall requested. If you extend this further the instruction came from Judge Jones. If it did not, the Marshall acted on her own and tried to manipulate the aribtrator.

There is no separate reason for Judge Jones to care about me nor for me to care about him. I moved on quickly past the issues that arose in that Sean Jones lawsuit. But what is important to remember is that while Judge Jones sought to intervene for Sean Jones, when I challenged him on that point he recused himself of the case and threw me out of his Chambers. And while he may have considered me impudent, it would take a particularly mental instability to care about me further. He told me to pay the judgement and my company did, but only after we exercised our legal appeal rights. So, if Marshall was recruited by Judge Jones or Bill to take on the M case in 2010, that’s a serious indictment on them and in particular the health of a Judge who has otherwise earned our respect.

M didn’t find Marshall through the OSB referral service. She was found for him and now we will be able to get to the real story.

Remember on November 12, 2015, the day of Judge Jones dinner, there was only one view of the Chapter 19 post.

Until next time.

Chapter 51 – My Lawsuit for Defamation

There are now three separate lawsuits.

The first a collections action by one of my company’s former employee and his now two attorneys. That litigation appears to be sponsored by X, who we will disclose at some point in the future.

The second is a lawsuit filed by one of the attorneys of my former employee M seeking damages for publishing this blog or for some elements of the blog, claiming that it is again retaliation for his “fictional” complaint to the ODJ.

The third is a complaint I filed against Joel Christiansen and Linda Marshall, attorneys for “M.” That complaint alleges that Marshall and Christiansen did or conspired or aided and abetted contacting The Honorable Robert E. Jones chamber and alleged that one of my blogs was veiled threat to do physical harm to Judge Jones. Then Judge Jones in turned contacted the U.S. Marshal’s service who contacted one of my attorneys and then me. Judge Jones wont tell me who contacted him, but the only readers of the blog were M and his team of attorneys.

The goal of that contact to Judge Jones chamber was designed to permanently defame me with the Federal Court and to gain some advantage in the first lawsuit as well as set some ground work for the second lawsuit. Most probably it was also to try to shut this blog down because we are getting very close to revealing the story behind the story. Recall that Marshall took it upon herself to bring references to prior litigation I had in front of Judge Jones more than 15 years ago. Her goal in doing so was to convince the arbitrator to find in her favor. I say her favor because she entered into a contingent fee agreement with my former employee “M” and wanted the arbitrator to award her a very large number. Pretty unscrupulous behavior.

Because of may examples of unscrupulous behavior by Marshall I filed a complaint with the Oregon Sate Bar. To suggest that the OSB pretends to care is accurate is true. They do a good job of that. To suggest however that the OSB actually cares that a former partner of an arbitrator is imploring him to set the facts aside and give her a big damage award is not true. The OSB does not care. The OSB’s first charge to protect and develop the franchise of law. It is not to protect the public.

And so after the second complaint about Marshall to the OSB and a rather pathetic response by the OSB, it seemed rather apparent to me that the OSB will only take this seriously if a jury of our peers considers a claim of aiding and abetting of the defamatory actions taken by Marshall and Christiansen, which on their part may only be aiding and abetting and concealing the behavior of someone else, but are benefiting from that action. After all if they are effective at tainting all actions I have in Federal court, they win a piece of that award.

So it’s a big deal. The biggest. It’s about making sure our judiciary remains honest and unbiased and uninfluenced by the unscrupulous and back room dealing of what probably represents a small portion of practicing attorneys. Frankly they should be cleaning this up themselves.

And with this post this blog will now be public. I have asked Joel and Linda to give me guidance and recommendations to meet their clients needs for privacy, which I am happy to do. But they have not responded and so I have implemented steps to keep M’s identity private to the degree I can and it is not possible to do so completely.

I am sad that this task has fallen on me. I would rather be playing golf and reading about it by someone more adept at telling this important story. But as far as I can tell no one including our news outlets want to be critical of judicial behavior and the unscrupulous behavior of attorneys who try to and some times successfully influence our judges and arbitrators to the detriment of our community.

But to their credit the FBI does care. The lawsuit is attached here.FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Until next time.

Chapter 50 – What game are we playing now?

So to keep the readers and publishers up to date now. M filed another lawsuit a few months ago and as a result I filed the answers and counterclaims alleging defamation. That defamation arose of course when M or someone form his camp contacted Robert E. Jones and alleged that one of my posts was a veiled threat to Judge Jones. I am always surprised by the brash stupidity of these accusations. It makes me wonder what kind of children am I dealing with here.

Since M is not the only one who would benefit from contacting Judge Jones, I attempted to add to the lawsuit the other parties that also benefit, namely Linda Marshall, Chester Marshall, Sandra Ware and Joel Christensen. Although Joel made no objection, Judge H quickly denied the motion to add the parties under diversity arguments, meaning that some of the parties are residents of Oregon and should not be added; however, in so far as the matter itself is properly in the Federal Court, it probably could have been allowed with respect to Sandra Ware.

We have reached out to Joel to determine what other adjustments we can make to this blog that may meet their needs in terms of anonymity, but he as not responded. In fact he does not respond to anything at all. And he asked the court to allow only email correspondence but he does not do that either.

The lawsuit itself does not add any real value to the book other than as an indication of how hungry our attorneys are in the Portland area. Too many attorneys, not enough work.

In so far as the real issue is the M group trying to deflect the contact with Judge Jones, it seems to me that what they are hoping for is an intervention by the Federal Court. And at least as to the collections action they may have gotten it from Magistrate Stewart.

In November 2009 I sent a letter a letter To Judge Brown essentially letting her know what had happened after our emergency TRO hearing in Portland on the Silicon Valley Bank matter. The letter basically outlined what was going on in Denver, the damage we had suffered, the actions that SVB took after Judge Brown referred it to the Denver court, etc. Judge Brown got it right and frankly my attorneys should have followed the contract terms and started the litigation in Denver as the contract demanded. And of course they should have not allowed the emergency TRO hearing we had in April 2009 to be dismissed without my approval. I cover than in my other blog,

Any way I digress. We filed a summary judgment motion with Judge Stewart and she denied our motion. But in her opinion and recommendations, Judge Stewart sites my letter to Judge Brown, specifically a representation I made that about “my wholly owned company NDT.” Now the letter apparently was added to the document record of the Touchstar case and while the letter provides no demonstrative evidence of anything as to the ownership of NDT, Judge Stewart nonetheless asserted that it did. It was an odd conclusion, “a tempest in a tea pot” type of observation. I was surprised.

The issue though is not that Judge Stewart was confused as to its meaning, but rather that she was now offering that as evidence somehow supporting the M groups position. And going out of her way to identify evidence that was not readily discover-able. I don’t even recall what I wrote, did not keep the letter, but Judge Stewart apparently decided to help the M group with the collections lawsuit by pointing it out. Its unseemly when a Judge says “hey you guys you have some evidence over here that may help you.” That pretty clearly declares a lack of independence and reflects at a minimum some emotional bias. Now remember this is not an emotionally charged public policy impact lawsuit of merit to millions. It’s just a collections effort of an unsecured creditor.

But it does point out that Judge Jones may have been active and attempting to help out the M group. There is a growing amount of evidence to suggest this and of course Crow has provided a lot of evidence on this issue…and it is an issue. I’m guessing this is the message that was sent to me.

I know Joel tried to score some point in his complaint about us pointing out gay porn found on the business computer returned to us by M. That was a video that had been downloaded when M was in possession of a hard drive and he was the only one who ever used that hard drive. But the porn was also downloaded and accessed often during a time M claimed the hard drive was in his fireproof safe. That’s the only reason for raising it. Let me say for the record that I could care less if the porn found was straight or gay porn. There was both. And a jpeg photo of an erect penis as well. I don’t know if that was an M self portrait or not. What is it about IT guys? Even after M, my IT guys were downloading porn.

And let me further say that I could care less if M was bi-sexual. I don’t care. And I don’t care if some our Federal Judges are gay. Our Federal Judge down in Eugene is and I could care less. But again the porn we found, the video, suggested it could be pedophilia and that I do care about. And if you don’t shame on you.

So why would Joel point that out in a complaint, identifying gay porn versus any other kind of porn? After all he knew we had turned over the material to law enforcement. Was the only reason to do it to garner the affection of a Federal Judge or two? Maybe. I’m rather at a loss.

Do we have a situation here where a few of our Judges are afraid of being exposed. If so, don’t be. Very few people care. We will have to think about who is in the closet.

I will admit that I think I understand that someone being gay and lesbian is so much clearer an issue of who they are than someone being bi-sexual. I do not understand that as clearly. Never have. We live in a relatively advanced society and think of myself as being the same. We have a Governor here in Oregon who was bi-sexual. She has been married for years, with children, but before was in a lesbian relationship. I do not care. And I’m a conservative.

Joel I don’t care if you are gay but I do mind that you are trying to appeal to Judges who might be. If we are going to be an advanced society, lets layer in the maturity, sophistication & honesty we want to attribute to all.

And Judge Stewart I do mind the intimation.

Until next time.