Gmail

Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>


ACTUAL NOTICE: ORS 40.225(4) re: crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privileges is now invoked by the People of Douglas County ex rel. (NOT a "hobby" [sic])


Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>

Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:56 PM

To: OSB CAO Intake <cao@osbar.org>

Cc: commissioners@co.douglas.or.us, Chris Boice <boice@co.douglas.or.us>, freeman@co.douglas.or.us, leif@co.douglas.or.us, Ian@nrtoday.com, david@roseburgbeacon.com

Bcc: rahartma@co.douglas.or.us, sipayne@co.douglas.or.us, felassen@co.douglas.or.us, bcodell@co.douglas.or.us, rlwesenb@co.douglas.or.us, andrea.coit@harrang.com, rahn@hostetterlawgroup.com

The People of Douglas County ex rel. Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General,

hereby formally allege that Jessica Hansen as Douglas County "CFO" should have known

that business personal property taxpayers continued to be overcharged

contrary to the County Assessor's report that those tax accounts were
value corrected
on the tax bills that went out on or about October 2015.

See relevant details summarized in the link above.

 

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN $14 MILLION ARE ROBBED FROM AN OREGON BANK?

 

Also, there is no mention of the DOUGLAS COUNTY DAMAGES CLAIM

anywhere in the latest CAFR for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2017,
as published at the Douglas County Internet website here:

http://www.co.douglas.or.us/finance/Cafr_Fy_2017.asp
http://www.co.douglas.or.us/finance/documents/2017CAFR/basic.pdf

We transmitted email to Kenneth Kuhns & Co. several times,

requesting an explanation, but those auditors have chosen
to fall totally silent:

http://www.co.douglas.or.us/finance/documents/2017CAFR/auditor.pdf

 


See in particular the Oregon Revised Statute which

elaborates on the crime-fraud exception to

attorney-client privileges at ORS 40.225:


https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/40.225 (4)

(4) There is no privilege under this section:

(a) If the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud;

(b) As to a communication relevant to an issue between parties who claim through the same deceased client, regardless of whether the claims are by testate or intestate succession or by inter vivos transaction;

(c) As to a communication relevant to an issue of breach of duty by the lawyer to the client or by the client to the lawyer;

(d) As to a communication relevant to an issue concerning an attested document to which the lawyer is an attesting witness; or

(e) As to a communication relevant to a matter of common interest between two or more clients if the communication was made by any of them to a lawyer retained or consulted in common, when offered in an action between any of the clients.

[end quote]


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964;

Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator (4X),

Federal Civil False Claims Act: 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.


http://supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308)