Gmail

Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>

CONFIDENTIAL Re: Formal Request for Official Finding(s) re: insurance available to cover the DOUGLAS COUNTY DAMAGES CLAIM and ADJUSTED INVOICES

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

Thu, May 16, 2019 at 5:35 PM

To: Ronald.C.Fredrickson@oregon.gov

Cc: "D. Rahn Hostetter" <office@hostetterlawgroup.com>

Bcc: bcodell@co.douglas.or.us

 

Thanks again, Mr. Frederickson:

 

Yes, I understand that point.

 

This next MEMO from County Counsel appears to be an anomaly,

i.e. where it states that the recommended amount

of employee crime insurance -- $750,000 --

"far exceeds the statutory minimum" [sic]:

 

(also attached)

 

We have no verifiable explanation(s) for that "extra" insurance,

except for reasonable speculations e.g. Ms. Jessica Hansen

had her reasons for authorizing crime insurance that

"far exceeded the statutory minimum".

 

We were hoping that answers would be forthcoming if/when

Ms. Hansen complied with a NOTICE OF DEPOSITION

served on her and on her attorney by Hostetter Law Group, LLP,

with offices in Enterprise, Oregon.

 

 

On this point, assuming you can justify the time required to read further,

the civil case we have been monitoring in the Douglas County

Circuit Court now shows evidence that a NOTICE OF DEPOSITION

served on Ms. Hansen appears to have been obstructed by means

of a "secret hearing".

 

There was no NOTICE OF SCHEDULED HEARING that we could find,

no hearing which the defendant's attorney was allowed to attend,

no ORDER or ruling on the MOTION TO QUASH NOTICE OF DEPOSITION,

and no entry of any such ORDER or ruling on that Court's official docket,

nor on the public docket computer in the Clerk's Office in that courthouse,

nor on the Internet copy of that docket available here:

 

(case number 17cv34310)

 

See Rule 3.2, Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct:

 

 

And, as far as we can determine, the requested DEPOSITION

was not "re-scheduled" in that Courthouse where "Ms. Hansen is safe" [sic]:

 

(see lines 25-26)

 

 

Here is the partial private docket we have been maintaining

in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet:

 

 

Copy of NOTICE OF DEPOSITION -- JESSICA HANSEN is archived here:

 

 

e.g. see also:

 

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

We continue to suspect that Ms. Hansen is doing everything she can,

with the assistance of her attorney, to prevent formal interrogation

of her role in refusing to refund all, or any part, of the original $14 Million

in business personal property tax overcharges, confirmed and re-confirmed

by the former Assessor and his two (2) staff experts in property taxation:

 

 

To illustrate just how serious her role appears to be in this matter,

a structured settlement could have refunded the entire $14M

with 10 annual installments of $1.4M each (plus legal rate of interest),

or 5 annual installments of $2.8M each, or variations on that same theme.

 

Nevertheless, the latest INVOICE has increased enormously with the

addition of triple damages (twice), a 10-year discovery window, and

the legal rate of interest.  See all detailed calculations here:

 

 

 

You can help by communicating your observations and analysis (if any) to:

 

Stacia McLerran  <Judicial.FITNESS@oregon.gov>

Assistant to the Executive Director

COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL FITNESS AND DISABILITY

P.O. Box 1130

Beaverton 97075

Oregon, USA

 

 

The People of Douglas County are now reserving their right

to lodge a related claim against Judge Pat Wolke's surety bond.

 

 

Thank you again for your timely and expert assistance with this

ongoing struggle the People of Douglas County have been

enduring with our County government personnel and also

now with officers of the Douglas County Circuit Court in Roseburg.

 

 

Cc:  Hostetter Law Group, LLP, Enterprise, Oregon

 

 

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)

 

 

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 4:24 PM FREDRICKSON Ronald C * DCBS <Ronald.C.Fredrickson@oregon.gov> wrote:

They are self-insured up to $1,000,000.  Insurance on an excess basis would typically have exclusions such as those you describe.

 

Ronald C. Fredrickson, CPCU, CLU, ChFC

Senior Policy Analyst

Division of Financial Regulation

503-930-0346

cid:image001.jpg@01D234EC.870A2180

 

From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2019 2:17 PM
To: FREDRICKSON Ronald C * DCBS <Ronald.C.Fredrickson@oregon.gov>
Cc: DCBS DFR InsuranceHelp * DCBS <DFR.InsuranceHelp@oregon.gov>
Subject: Re: Formal Request for Official Finding(s) re: insurance available to cover the DOUGLAS COUNTY DAMAGES CLAIM and ADJUSTED INVOICES

 

Thank you very much, Mr. Fredrickson.

 

We now suspect that the Douglas County personnel with whom you spoke

did fail to disclose what should have been disclosed (read FRAUD):

 

Insofar as personnel employed by Douglas County attempted to tell you

that Douglas County is "self-insured", it now appears that

they failed to inform you sufficiently of the following:

 

Chiefly, the insurance contracts which they disclosed to us,

in reply to proper public records requests several months ago,

contain explicit EXCLUSIONs for refunds of taxes, fees and assessments:

 

http://supremelaw.org/cc/DoCo/risk.management/letter.2017-08-09/insurance.exclusions.pdf

 

 

Therefore, Douglas County is NOT "self-insured" for any of those

EXCLUSIONs, if they should attempt to pay refunds with

existing insurance coverage(s).

 

 

We can sympathize with insurance underwriters who would

insist on stating such EXCLUSIONs in their insurance contracts

with local governments, for the following primary

and painfully obvious reason:

 

Refunds imply mistakes for which local governments are liable,

and which those local governments are expected to correct --

by remitting all excess taxes, fees and assessments

directly to the damaged taxpayers.

 

And, refusing to correct such mistakes, once they are discovered,

only aggravates the liabilities that result from those mistakes

e.g. with interest penalties, triple damages for elder abuse,

and triple damages (again) for engaging in a pattern of

racketeering activities by reason of mail fraud many thousands

of times:

 

10 years @ 6,000 overcharged taxpayers per year  ~=  60,000 acts of mail fraud

(not counting payments mailed by damaged taxpayers to Douglas County)

 

(See links to INVOICES below, which itemize in detail those additional liabilities.)

 

 

For similar reasons, we can also sympathize whenever

insurance underwriters decline to indemnify criminal conduct,

fraudulent, dishonest or malicious acts or omissions

of any kind, i.e. see the following additional EXCLUSIONs for:

 

*  Any liability arising out of criminal, fraudulent, dishonest or malicious acts or omissions

committed by or at the direction of the insured;  and,

*  Any liability arising out of your "wrongful act" for gain, profit, or advantage

to which you are not legally entitled.

 

 

Clearly, $14 Million in excess business personal property taxes,

which have STILL not been refunded in full or in part, were in fact

gains, profits or advantages to which Douglas County

was never legally entitled!

 

 

QED (quod erat demonstrandum)!

 

 

Thank you again, and have a wonderful day!

 

 

Bcc:  Douglas County Sheriffs, Public Information Officer(s)

 

 

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)

 

 

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 1:23 PM FREDRICKSON Ronald C * DCBS <Ronald.C.Fredrickson@oregon.gov> wrote:

 

Thank you for contacting the Oregon Division of Financial Regulation.  We have regulatory authority over insurance companies, agents and specified financial institutions. Generally, cities and counties in Oregon are self-insured and do not fall under our jurisdiction.  I verified by phone that Douglas County is self-insured.  I’m sorry we cannot assist you with your claim.

 

Ronald C. Fredrickson, CPCU, CLU, ChFC

Senior Policy Analyst

Division of Financial Regulation

503-930-0346

cid:image001.jpg@01D234EC.870A2180

 

From: DCBS DFR InsuranceHelp * DCBS <DFR.InsuranceHelp@oregon.gov>
Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2019 1:07 PM
To: FREDRICKSON Ronald C * DCBS <Ronald.C.Fredrickson@oregon.gov>
Subject: FW: Formal Request for Official Finding(s) re: insurance available to cover the DOUGLAS COUNTY DAMAGES CLAIM and ADJUSTED INVOICES

 

Hi Ron,

 

Can you respond to this email?

 

Thank you,

Ryan

 

From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2019 12:59 PM
To: DCBS DFR InsuranceHelp * DCBS <DFR.InsuranceHelp@oregon.gov>
Cc: bcodell@co.douglas.or.us; Trina.A.Swaja@ojd.state.or.us
Subject: Formal Request for Official Finding(s) re: insurance available to cover the DOUGLAS COUNTY DAMAGES CLAIM and ADJUSTED INVOICES

 

TO:

Oregon Division of Financial Regulation
P.O. Box 14480
Salem 97309-0405

Oregon, USA

 

 

Greetings Division of Financial Regulation:

 

I represent the People of Douglas County ex rel.

in the matter of the outstanding DOUGLAS COUNTY

DAMAGES CLAIM (see below for details).

 

We are writing to request an official determination from your office

that certain "exclusions" in Douglas County's insurance policies

render those policies unavailable to cover the outstanding

DOUGLAS COUNTY DAMAGES CLAIM, now PAST DUE.

 

This question has escalated in importance, chiefly because

available financial statements call for the conclusion that the

Douglas County government is now insolvent (i.e. liabilities

now exceed published assets).

 

Relevant documentation can be conveniently accessed here

in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet:

 

 

 

DAMAGES CLAIM Exhibit "A":

 

 

Our prior analyses of Douglas County's insurance policies

are archived here in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet:

 

 

 

 

We do regard the following MEMO as rather revealing:

excess crime insurance implies excess criminal liability

of which the named county government personnel

were already aware:

 

 

 

If you should have any questions, we will endeavor

to respond promptly via email (preferred).

 

 

Thank you, in advance, for any assistance you can

provide to the People of Douglas County, Oregon.

 

 

p.s.  FYI:  In a related civil court case, a FORMAL COMPLAINT

has now been lodged that alleges two (2) "secret hearings"

were conducted in blatant violation of Article I, Section 10,

Oregon State Constitution:

 

 

The People of Douglas County hereby reserve their right

to originate further claim(s) against all applicable surety bond(s).

e.g. bonding Circuit Court Judge Pat Wolke et al.

 

 

Cc: 

Douglas County Sheriffs, Public Information Officers;  and,

Trial Court Administrator, Josephine County, Oregon

 

Bcc:  Hostetter Law Group, LLP, Enterprise, Oregon

 


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)


http://supremelaw.org/cc/DoCo/insurance/letter.2016-12-23/Memo(1).pdf

 

Memo(1).pdf
40K