Check it out Oregon-- "Challenging Corporate Power: California Community Says Companies Are Not People; Bans Campaign Donations" at http://www.alternet.org/workplace/61737/ !

I'm not a big sizemore fan but that jury trial was a kangaroo court. The judge's son was a union organizer, which he failed to disclose. Then there was not a single Republican on the jury. Guess what? The Oregon Supreme Court will probably vacate the whole thing.

Sizemore was and is a sloppy con man who lined his own pockets and played a shell game with the $$ in and out of his various organizations. No question.

Come to think of it, kind of like the public employee unions.

You got it. If there was ever the perfect description of the OEA and other Oregon public employee unions it's "Racketeers and Left-Wing Bagmen". They make Sizemore and any right wing counter part look petty.

Thanks Kari.

The reason we did not appeal all of the biased rulings Judge Jerome LaBarre made in the case was not because they were not appealable or not morally and professionally reprehensible, but because all that would have won us is a new trial back in Multnomah County Circuit Court and another six years of appeals. Why bother?

We limited our appeal to purely legal and technical grounds, because none, absolutely none, of the things we were alleged to have done, even if we had done them, were RICO offenses; meaning the case should never have gone to trial in the first place. I can assure you that there were other judges in Multnomah County, who wondered what the heck LaBarre was doing letting the case go to trial when it should have been dismissed at the Motion 21 phase.

Anyway, if we win before the Oregon Supreme Court, the case does not go back to Multnomah County for a new trial, but would end the matter and the phony judgments the OEA and AFT currently have would be vacated. If we lose, it is on to the U.S. Supreme Court.

As a "non-fan" said above, the Multnomah County trial really was a kangaroo court. I can't tell you how many liberal Democrats haved stopped me on the street since the trial or come up to me in a store or restaurant and told me that they disagree with my politics and have never voted for one of my measures, but nonetheless feel compelled to apologize for the railroad job I received in Multnomah County in that absurd lawsuit that was obviously designed to get me out of politics, a strategy that has apparently failed.

As for the post that started this rabbit trail, only Blue Oregon nutjobs on the far, far left would continue to say that I had anything to do with forgeries. Not even the unions have made that claim, at least not in court. And no honest person would say that I was "convicted" of anything. I wasn't even a party to the case. The unions opened and closed the trial by telling the jury that the case was not about Bill Sizemore and that Bill Sizemore was not a party to the case and not being sued.

Ever wonder why the union lawyers made that statement to the jury, even after the jury had heard all of the evidence? Check it out. It's right there in the transcript of the trial.

By the way, if you can find one of those "Sizemore owes me money" bumper stickers, please send me one. I will put it on my pick-up.

Kari:

I am no fan of Sizemore, and I am always up for a fight on most of his measures, but your post sounds more like the tatics of the far-right. Personal attacks.

Whatever Mr. Sizemore did will be sorted out in court, but for us it should be about ideas. Sizemore proposes a new measure, let me read it and I will decide. I acutally liked his insurance measure from last year (the one insurance counpanies defeated with millions).

When you rant like you did above, it makes you sound like them. It turns me off and makes me want to change my registration to independent. I would have preferred a post about what he has proposed and then an education on why they are bad for Oregon. It sounds narrow-minded when we attack everything because of its source.

Joe

let me read it and I will decide. I acutally liked his insurance measure from last year

Which, frankly, probably means you didn't understand it. And that is the problem. It takes a lawyer to really understand all the implications of many of these things and its only after they pass and the lawyers have sorted it out that people know what they voted for.

Given that, any Sizemore initiative ought to have a huge hurdle to jump over to be credible. You start with the assumption that there is some reason the folks backing the measure are paying a con-artist like Sizemore to promote it. Honest folks hire honest people.

Ross:

Don't be condescending. I read the measure, I understand how insurance companies take advantage of those most vulnerable. You are willing to turn your back on the poor in our community because you dislike Sizemore so much (Rich get lower rates, while the poor struggling to pay for mandated car insurance on $10 hr., as if they don't have enough hurdles).

If the only way you can have confidence in your own opinions is villainize everyone on the other side personally, then you are not a liberal.

There is a huge difference between those of us who are liberal (open-minded) and leftist.

Sizemore may be a bad guy, I don't know, nor do I care. The only question should be the issue he helps puts forward for us to consider (after 100,000 Oregonians agree to sign a petition). That is the difference between us and them.

Don't be condescending.

There is nothing condescending about it. The fact that you read and thought you understood the measure doesn't mean you in fact did. Since it didn't pass, you will never find out all that you actually voted for.

Sizemore may be a bad guy, I don't know, nor do I care.

I suspect that is the case with most Oregonians. I thought the idea that attacking Sizemore is a good way to get at his initiatives had long since lost favor for that reason.

But the fact is you should know and care. Because Sizemore has successfully conned people into supporting measures that served his rich friends at their expense.

You are willing to turn your back on the poor in our community

I don't think the poor were the ones who would benefit. But you wouldn't know that from reading the measure would you?

Ross, Why have lawyers sort things out when we can just ask you.

Sorry pal, I'll pass. Despite your apparent self omnipotent image, IMO, you have demonstrated very little credibility.

Having read many of your out of state, misguided blog contributions I'm not so sure you even pass for any less of a "bad guy" than Sizemore.

Bill Sizemore wrote, only Blue Oregon nutjobs on the far, far left would continue to say that I had anything to do with forgeries. Not even the unions have made that claim, at least not in court.

There's that slick Bill Sizemore talk - it's the same line of B.S. that got him past everyone's noses back when the big expose hit the Oregonian about how he screwed over everyone he ever worked with before he went to OTU. Here's his trick: He focuses your attention on a narrow point and makes you assume that since he isn't guilty of the one thing, then he isn't guilty of any thing. In this case, he didn't forge signatures - that part is true; and you are to assume, therefore, that he didn't do anything else he was accused of. You don't remember the embezzlement. You don't remember the money laundering. You don't remember the tax fraud. You don't look at how he lied to contributors or to the government or to the media or to his employees or to his business partners. None of that exists.

You will notice he never denies any of that because he can't. The cold hard facts prove otherwise. He just denies that he forged signatures. That way he can lie to you without actually lying to you. It's called "smoke and mirrors" and he's an expert at it.

If people are willing to let a slime ball be a slime ball and still give consideration to his ideas, even though they're largely funded by yet another slime ball, that's fine. Let's just not pretend he's a good guy just because he goes to church and prays to Jesus and his daughter experiences miracles. Good guys acknowledge what they've done wrong and try to make it right. They apologize to the people they've hurt. When Sizemore acknowledges what he's done and apologizes, when he shows some sign that he cares about other at least as much as he cares about himself, then perhaps I'll be willing to consider his ideas. Apparently, others are more generous and able to distinguish between ideas and character than I am at this time.

The funny thing about you, Becky, is that when you worked for Bill, everyone knew you were basically just a groupie. Now you try to pass yourself off as a "sadder by wiser girl."

Not buying it. At least Arianna Huffington tries to paper over her transformation with some kind of written intellectual record.

You were Bill's girl, probably all agog with his charms and hoping he'd jilt his wife and kids for you. It didn't happen and then the heat started coming down.

So you turned on him. Not an irrational decision, but don't try to pretend with us that you are some kind of principled whistleblower.

You are just a Billskank that defected when the heat got too intense. Why should we care what you think or say about him now, when we certainly didn't when you were handling his "staff."

Becky:

This whole post makes me ill. I want to apologize for the jerk above who attacked you so personally. None of us should have to take that abuse.

I hate the politics of personal attacks, which is why I appear to defend Sizemore here. I am not, I just don’t think it is germane to the constructive discussion of politics.

And I don't want to attack you nor do I want to be an apologist for Bill Sizemore and his right-wing friends, but I have never understood your position and to be perfectly honest, trusted your conversion.

First, Kari said above:
"On Monday, the high court will hear an appeal of the 2002 jury ruling that found Bill Sizemore had engaged in racketeering, fraud and forgery during the signature gathering process."
But you said that Sizemore did not engage in forgery -- you and Kari are saying opposite things here. In addition, I have never been able to see how Sizemore engaged in fraud, maybe racketeering, but it seems that everyone on his side was in on it, so I can't see fraud.

Second, who did Sizemore embezzle from? Kari said above: "Miller outlined how Sizemore blatantly funneled money into his signature gathering outfit for his own personal use – including the purchase of a tractor, paying off credit card bills, payments to his wife and mother-in-law, and private-school tuition for his children."
So he had a signature firm that got paid from a political committee at some rate. That would be profit (maybe excessive, but I just can't see how it would be embezzlement in any way). Appears like his board of directors approved or didn't care what he was doing with the money, so who has made the claim that he embezzled other than you?

Finally, I just have a hard time seeing why you lash-out at Sizemore the way you do. You got off scot-free on the whole thing when you were facing criminal charges if I am correct (please correct me). You admitted to forgery, you participated in years of this activity, and you only changed your position when you got caught and needed a way out. That is not exactly respectable behavior.

As I understand your many posts to different progressive blogs, you were the person who actually carried out Sizemore’s underhanded activities. Which you attempt to use as credibility, but just reminds the reader of your guilt. Without the statements of a known forger (you), Sizemore can’t even be connected to most of the things in the suit.

I must say, that if I was in your situation I would never talk about those events again in my life, I would be so horrified over what I had done. You sound really guilty in your many blog posts where you are lashing out at your former partner in crime. I have to tell you this: Every time you post about Sizemore, I believe you less. Protest to much…..

You said above: When Sizemore acknowledges what he's done and apologizes, when he shows some sign that he cares about other at least as much as he cares about himself, then perhaps I'll be willing to consider his ideas. Apparently, others are more generous and able to distinguish between ideas and character than I am at this time.

Your use of “character” is an interesting term here.

I hate the politics of personal attacks, which is why I appear to defend Sizemore here. I am not, I just don’t think it is germane to the constructive discussion of politics.

Yet, you then go on to engage in the very same by questioning Becky's credibility. The fact is that part of the evidence we use in evaluating information is its source. We can and should do the same with proposals for changes in public policy. Sizemore's history tells everyone something about his initiative. It certainly seems to win him financial support from his wealthy supporters. Why shouldn't it cause a flag of caution for the rest of us?

To "Jilted" I can only say it makes me disgusted that people like you think any working relationship between a man and woman must necessarily result in romance or the desire for romance. I have a 20-year-long strong marriage, as everyone who knows me knows well, and I was never romantically interested in Bill Sizemore. So far as I ever knew, he, too, has always had a strong marriage and he never said or did anything around me that would have made his wife uncomfortable. I did admire him for a time and was very enthusiastic about being able to work on things that I believed in. But what you suggest is appalling to me.

Joe T. – I don't blame you for your doubts at all because you don't know me very well. But I will try to respond to what you have written.

As to the apparent contradiction over forgery, a lot of people mistakenly believe that Sizemore was on trial, but he wasn't. It was the organization itself that was on trial. The forgery entailed Kelli Highley forging signatures on petitions, as well as my own contribution to that mess, which I wrote about last year. Sizemore always made it clear such practices were not acceptable and so far as I knew he worked hard to weed forgeries and forgers out of his signature collecting process. The forgery label should not be applied to Sizemore.

Second, who did Sizemore embezzle from?

He wrote unauthorized checks from OTU entities to himself on multiple occasions to pay taxes and other things. I've detailed this before here.

So he had a signature firm that got paid from a political committee at some rate.

That's how normal people would do it, but not Sizemore. There was no rate or contract. He simply raised as much money as he could through OTU, moved it over to his company, and then spent it however he wanted. If he didn't have enough for the petitioning after having spent it on himself, he would just raise more.

Appears like his board of directors approved or didn't care what he was doing with the money, so who has made the claim that he embezzled other than you?

They didn't know about it. They met once a year and talked about things in generalizations. He picked people for the Board that wouldn't be involved.

I just have a hard time seeing why you lash-out at Sizemore the way you do. You got off scot-free on the whole thing when you were facing criminal charges if I am correct (please correct me). You admitted to forgery, you participated in years of this activity, and you only changed your position when you got caught and needed a way out. That is not exactly respectable behavior.

You're right, it wasn't respectable. I was conflicted and upset about what was going on at OTU, as well as my own role in it, for three of the four years I worked there. I kept thinking I could fix things and make them right, but I couldn't. Maybe my thinking is twisted here, but I have felt that speaking up was the best way to make things right. Tucking tail and hiding for the rest of my life would have been a lot easier. I have never shrunk away from my own responsibility for what happened. And I was ready to testify before I knew I would get immunity.

As I understand your many posts to different progressive blogs, you were the person who actually carried out Sizemore’s underhanded activities.

Not exactly. I ended up getting into trouble trying to fix or hide Sizemore's underhanded activities and reckless, unaccountable management when I should have just walked away.

Without the statements of a known forger (you), Sizemore can’t even be connected to most of the things in the suit.

Not true. I had evidence to back up everything I said and the unions had even more evidence. They didn't trust me, either, and they did their homework. They and the IRS and the State all had evidence proving what I said. Had I ever lied, I would have gone to jail. Had I held back anything from them, including my own guilt, I would have gone to jail. This is not "he said, she said." For you to imply that it is simply shows your lack of familiarity with the details of the case.

I must say, that if I was in your situation I would never talk about those events again in my life, I would be so horrified over what I had done. You sound really guilty in your many blog posts where you are lashing out at your former partner in crime. I have to tell you this: Every time you post about Sizemore, I believe you less. Protest to much…..

I didn't talk about them for a long time, but it bothered me that people were brushing off what happened and trusting Sizemore again. I thought it was because of poor news coverage. Over time I've realized it is simply willful ignorance. Some people simply ignore the information that conflicts with their preferred reality.

Your use of “character” is an interesting term here.

Joe, you have no idea what I've been through over the past six years, the soul-searching and work I've done to find out what in my character allowed me to get into such a horrible situation as that so I would never do that again. I recognize I had a shallow character then, but I am much wiser now. I did what I thought people expected of me then without ever having thoroughly understood what I said I believed in, but I know what I believe now. I cared what people thought of me then, but now I am what I am and you can think whatever you want of me. I was a "good girl" then, but now I'm my own person.

As I said, I understand your questioning of my motives and conversion. I can't do anything about your skepticism, really, because we do not talk to each other or interact in any way. But Kari has linked to some good information, and if you really want to know more, it's there to be found.

People like Sizemore won't stay in the game if they can't covertly squeeze money out of the process and into their own pockets."

I doubt that is true. Plenty of people make money off all sorts of political campaigns. The difference with Sizemore is that he creates his own business by filing initiatives based on what his funders are willing to pay him for.

It is rather pitiful that Becky says she tried to or wanted to clean things up at Oregon Taxpayers United. When she was testifying for the unions was the first time I ever heard Becky Miller say that she was unhappy with the way we did things at OTU and wanted to change them. Never once did she come to me and say, "I feel uncomfortable with the way we are doing things."

Honestly, Becky, you are fooling yourself.

Liberals tend to blame people for making money and are always talking about how greedy conservatives are. I invite anyone to look a the C&E Reports for 2000. Look at how much was spendt putting measures on the ballot. Look at them all. See how much everyone spent.

If I was just doing this for money, I would have charged a lot more. Heck, I made money putting measures on the ballot for about half of what others charged. Using my company to collect signatures was a very good deal for my donors, which is why they never got upset that I made money.

In fact, I never found a donor to help with Measure 7, the precursor to Measure 37. Instead, I put that measure on the ballot mostly with money I made off the other measures. If I was just being greedy, I would have kept that money for myself.

One final thing: It says a lot to me, Becky, that the entire time you were being deposed by my attorney and the entire time you were on the witness stand (several hours) at the trial, I was sitting right in front of you. Not once did you look me in the eye.

I watched you intently, trying to figure out why you were doing what you were doing. All I saw was someone who apparently was ashamed of herself, who was betraying a friend who had trusted her totally.

I will believe youa re sincere when you are willing to look me in the eye and say the things you write about so freely on blogs, things that I know are not true.

When she was testifying for the unions was the first time I ever heard Becky Miller say that she was unhappy with the way we did things at OTU and wanted to change them. Never once did she come to me and say, "I feel uncomfortable with the way we are doing things."

That is a blatant lie and you know it. I brought my concerns to you many times. You always had some slick explanation. At first I figured I probably just didn't understand how things were - the great Bill Sizemore was OK with them so it must be OK. At first it didn't even occur to me to believe my intuition about you. Like a child, I thought if something was wrong, it was my fault somehow - that my understanding of the evidence and of how things ought to be was what was wrong. But finally I admitted to myself that I just didn't buy all your explanations, that the evidence could no longer be ignored, that hearing you say one thing to one person and something entirely opposite to another meant that something really was wrong. Maybe you think I didn't ever bring my concerns to you because you've been telling this lie for so long you believe it yourself now. But it's simply not true. For instance, you began to get irritated with me asking you about the Americans for Tax Reform money laundering scheme because I kept bringing it up. Surely you remember that. There was a lot of other stuff I asked you to explain as well. Maybe you don't remember because I always tried to be respectful and non-confrontational in asking you those questions. You were my direct supervisor. You controlled my family's income. I couldn't exactly go to you and say in so many words that I caught you lying to me, or I found out that "JLC" who supposedly got money out of OTU for printing really was you and no printing had been done, for example. Instead, I would say I didn't know how to explain something if asked about it, or I asked you what "JLC" was (you wouldn't answer), or I asked you for receipts (you wouldn't supply them), or I made up forms for you to track your expenses (you wouldn't, instead preferring at tax time to come to me with some unsubstantiated figure you could either say you contributed for a tax write-off, though you hadn't, or collect a reimbursement check so you could pay your taxes), or on and on and on. You knew I was a nice person and you took advantage of that. Maybe you just didn't realize that I was both nice and strong-willed. My ability to do the right thing under intense pressure was something you didn't anticipate because I had been nice for so long.

Why won't I confront you now, and why didn't I look at you during the trial? Honestly, there is nothing worse than having an accomplished, compulsive, pathological liar look you straight in the eyes and, without a flinch of guilt, lie right to your face. It's stomach-turning. I won't face you again because it would be a sickening, pointless waste of time. Anyone who reads the transcript from the trial would see that even when confronted with the most undeniable, damning evidence, you would not break down and admit anything. The union attorneys were blown away by that. They had been absolutely certain that you would be backed into a corner, the evidence was so powerful. But no. You just kept your cool and performed your innocent act and worked your way through it. Good people who aren't liars, who feel guilty when they lie, just find themselves so conflicted over trying to discern the truth between a good liar's convincing performance and the cold, hard evidence that the easiest solution is to give up and go with what they can best live with.

The thing is, I saw the evidence. I caught you lying. And I decided not to give you an opportunity to pressure me while I was on the stand or lie to me anymore.

You know, I've seen two other people who are really good at looking you straight in the face and lying. They are so good at it that no matter how strong the evidence, you still question your judgment. One of them was a man my Mom was dating when I was a kid. He backed me up against the wall and tried to get me to kiss him (gee, I wonder why his own daughter refused to live with him?) and told me not to bother to run because he could run faster. When I told my mother about it he denied the event had ever occurred. Quite convincingly, too. I thank God my mother, who knows me better than anyone else, believed me over him. The other liar is a family member who is an alcoholic and former meth addict. He always has the most sincere, boyish way about him - so innocent looking - and he spins a story like nobody's business. Only later when you're re-telling it to someone else will you realize how completly ridiculous it is. It's quite a phenomenal gift to be able to bring people along with one's own fantasy like that. Too bad some people misapply that gift and use it for selfish purposes.