Governor's office receives fraudulent veto request letter
Carla Axtman
Update:11:35AM-I'm getting requests to post the fake letter and the fax cover sheet information. Sources are still sending me some of that information and material. I'll post more when I can.--Carla
Over the course of the current legislative session, Representatives Bob Jenson (R-Pendleton) and Jefferson Smith (D-Portland) have been working together on legislation to ease Oregon's increasing water woes.
Some of that effort has culminated in the form of House Bill 3369.
I'm not going to pretend that I understand all the parts of this bill and what it will and won't do. Frankly, that's not the point of this post.
Somebody out there is willing to send a fraudulent veto request letter to the Governor's office in an effort to scuttle this legislation.
With a cover sheet dated June 23, 2009 a veto request letter addressed to the Governor's Natural Resource Policy Director Mike Carrier was sent from a Kinko's in Northwest Portland. The letter was signed by 7 organizations, only one of which had been vocally opposed.
The alleged signatories are all, as I understand it, significant when it comes to water policy. To have this group come out en masse against this legislation would be a major blow to what has been a bill that's apparently enjoyed good bipartisan support.
Yesterday, 5 of the 7 groups whose names were attached to the bill sent out a letter to Representatives Jenson and Smith saying that they had absolutely no knowledge or association with the veto request to the Governor for House Bill 3369. Sources are telling me that the buzz on the other two organizations is that they didn't know about it either, but didn't have an opportunity to sign on before it was sent.
The Capitol is a small building with a superbly efficient gossip chain. Whoever sent the false veto request to the Governor's office knew exactly what they were doing. Once it became known that there was a possible veto from the Governor, the chances for the formerly bipartisan, well-supported bill became much shakier.
Rep. Smith on the House Floor last night, explaining the situation:
Pretty blatant and nasty tactic by whomever perpetrated this. It's one thing to lose on the merits. It's quite another to lose because some jackass decides to blatantly lie to the Governor's office.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jun 26, '09
Oregon's WATERGATE!
11:20 a.m.
Jun 26, '09
Oh.....I should have thought of that headline...DAMMIT!
11:21 a.m.
Jun 26, '09
This is a great example of folks getting too cute and clever by half, to the serious detriment of their issue and own reputation.
Based on this post, it doesn't seem like it'll be very hard to figure out who's behind the fake letter. They faxed it from Kinko's. Well, that's one potentially pretty easy route to figuring out who paid the bill.
But setting that aside, isn't this basically a form of identity theft? Typically, you think of obtaining new credit and running up bills as the end result, but some people use identity theft to get apartments, jobs or whatever. This seems applicable.
It would surprise me if the responsible party isn't identified.
Jun 26, '09
Its Identity theft (class C Felony), times seven. Plus Forgery II (class A misdo), times seven.
Its a good thing for this person(s) that Measure 57 may be delayed I guess. It'll be interesting to see if the Multnomah Co. DA prosecutes this.
Jun 26, '09
Who would ever imagine that someone would try to confuse the Governor? That's almost as bad as someone trying to confuse the entire Oregon electorate by proclaiming Yes means No and No means Yes, as HB 2414 amended would do.
Fortunately, the Senate did the right thing this morning and sent the bill back to Ways and Means to strip this confusing language out of the bill.
Jun 26, '09
It's a shame this bill is getting targeted by moneyed interests who still think it's 1859. Several enviro groups are supporting HB 3369 and it seems like it's got pretty strong bipartisan support. This might be a rainy state but we're headed for a real water crisis (along with everyone else) if we don't start planning for the future. Lets hope these tactics backfire.
12:12 p.m.
Jun 26, '09
Steve Buckstein:
There's already an established thread for that topic elsewhere just a few posts down from mine. Is it really necessary to jawbone it here, too?
Stay on topic, please.
Jun 26, '09
3369 is a bill that deserves to pass.
The bill would help protect streamflows in the Columbia River by reducing pressure to develop Columbia River water when fish are migrating. The bill also will help recharge aquifers in the Umatilla Basin and, potentially, help restore streamflows in the Umatilla River.
The bill directs the state to create an integrated water strategy to help plan for the state's instream and out of stream water future. Done properly, a water strategy would benefit the state.
The bill contains appropriate standards for the use of public monies through loans and grants on certain water storage projects.
In sum, this is a balanced bill that Reps. Bob Jenson and Jefferson Smith have worked very hard to craft. The bill is supported by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, business interests, Umatilla county commissioners, agricultural interests and environmentalists. There is bi-partisan support for the bill. The bill deserves to pass on the merits.
The anonymous letter sent to the Governor's staff is unfortunate. There will be an effort to determine the source and author of this letter. Given the merits of this bill and the unprecedented coalition supporting the bill, it should take more than this letter to fool legislators or the governor's office and derail this important bill.
Jun 26, '09
"Posted by: Robert Harris | Jun 26, 2009 11:31:48 AM
Its Identity theft (class C Felony), times seven. Plus Forgery II (class A misdo), times seven."
Whoever tried to get away with this probably forgot what ended Marilyn Shannon's political career.
Term limits were in effect, so she and J. Gianella were going to switch places. Except they got caught having announced "we are endorsed by the following groups" when some of the groups named had it in their bylaws that they did not endorse candidates.
HR--that is a great headline!
Jun 27, '09
The fax in question named five or six organizations which allegedly opposed HB 3369 at one point or another during the session. In this regard, the author was mistaken because only two or three of the groups are formally opposed to the bill. The other groups are formally "neutral" on the bill, meaning they are a bunch of wimps and either imcapable of making a decision or afraid to take a stand. In any event, while the fax may be factually incorrect in terms of which organizations are formally opposed to the bill, the fax does not purport to be written on behalf of any of the listed organizations. Carla and Jefferson Smith are way out of bounds in accusing the anonymous author of fraud and should apologize to everyone they have mislead. Me inaccuately saying that Jefferson Smith opposes HB 3369 is a lot different than saying that I am Jefferson Smith and I oppose HB 3369. Jefferson Smith is smart enough to appreciate the considerable difference that exists between the latter statement and the former.
Whoever sent the fax to Mike Carrier put a lot of time into their letter and made a number of salient points. They were wrong about which groups are formally opposed to the measure. That does not make the author guilty of fraud. Carla and Jefferson Smith are misrepresenting the letter and I challenge them to post the letter online so that everyone here can see for themselves who is really making misrepresentations. :-)
btw - I have no clue who sent the anonymouse fax. My guess, based on the lexicon, is some Portland lawyer. It will be interesting to see whether they can actually track the author down. A follow up post on that would be great.
number of organizations, the fax never purports to be written on behalf of the stated organizations.
1:14 p.m.
Jun 27, '09
In other words, ROregon, you've seen the letter. Why don't you post it?
I have heard - though not seen - that the letter has seven signatories. No?
1:15 p.m.
Jun 27, '09
BTW, what's the point of sending it anonymously unless your goal is to hide your tracks?
2:31 p.m.
Jun 27, '09
In this regard, the author was mistaken because only two or three of the groups are formally opposed to the bill.
Only one of the groups has been vocally opposed, according to my sources. There is one other group that has had expressed opposition. The rest are officially neutral, as I understand it.
In any event, while the fax may be factually incorrect in terms of which organizations are formally opposed to the bill, the fax does not purport to be written on behalf of any of the listed organizations.
Then why were their organization names attached to the letter at all? If it wasn't supposed to give the impression that they were a part of it, why put them on there at all? That's some pretty shaky stuff you've got going here.
Carla and Jefferson Smith are way out of bounds in accusing the anonymous author of fraud and should apologize to everyone they have mislead.
Uh...whoever sent this letter clearly tried to use the organizations in question against their permission. So how about coming clean..tell us who you are..and exactly what you know? This BS accusatory crap while hiding behind a veil of anonimity is garbage.
Whoever sent the fax to Mike Carrier put a lot of time into their letter and made a number of salient points. They were wrong about which groups are formally opposed to the measure. That does not make the author guilty of fraud.
So who is this person? Name them. If they did all this work, why hide behind a bunch of organizations who didn't give permission to have their group slapped on to this?
Carla and Jefferson Smith are misrepresenting the letter and I challenge them to post the letter online so that everyone here can see for themselves who is really making misrepresentations. :-)
I don't have the letter yet. I plan to post it as soon as I can get it.
btw - I have no clue who sent the anonymouse fax. My guess, based on the lexicon, is some Portland lawyer. It will be interesting to see whether they can actually track the author down. A follow up post on that would be great.
You clearly think you have a clue to at least part of this. So it seems like it wouldn't be that hard for you to find out...how about doing some legwork of your own and finding out who sent the letter? Clearly it's someone who wants to hide.
I would think if that person did all the work you claim, they'd at least have the decency to tell us who they are. Sending the Guv a veto request letter under the guise of a bunch of groups who clearly didn't ask for it is pretty smarmy.
Jun 27, '09
I have seen the letter.
While it was indeed very carefully crafted so as not to explictly state that the organizations listed were requesting a veto, it is very clear that the intent was to make it appear as such to the reader.
I'm not certain whether this was strictly illegal, but it was certainly meant to be misleading, and certainly meant to convey inaccurate information to the Governor's Office.
Jun 27, '09
This issue is as clear as night and day to me.
If you send a letter with unauthorized and most likely forged signatures, then you have committed 5 counts of fraud and forgery for each organization that has responded in writing to the Oregon Legislature, saying that they did not authorize it.
Muck it up in legalese all you want, but fraud is fraud and forgery is forgery; and no amount of legal interpretation of the "tone" or "spirit" of the letter is going to hide that fact .
Whoever wrote this letter would be smart to be leaving the State of Oregon right now because their career and most likely the reputation of their organization or the organization that they represent is over.
Game over.
Jun 28, '09
Only one problem Mr. Leo.......there are no forged or fraudulent signatures. Other than that, you hit the money on the mark.
Jun 28, '09
BTW I have no clue at all as to who sent the letter and have no better ability than anyone else to track the author down. My speculation that a Portland lawyer likely sent the fax is based solely on where the letter was sent from (pdx) and how it was written (like a lawyer). My question is why people who have not read the letter are accusing the anonymous author of fraud, when it is apparent to anyone that has actually read the letter that no fraud has occured. The letter is, however, inaccurate as to where certain groups stand on the bill.
Jun 28, '09
Posted by: Anonymous Capitoler | Jun 27, 2009 5:41:57 PM
I have seen the letter.
While it was indeed very carefully crafted so as not to explictly state that the organizations listed were requesting a veto, it is very clear that the intent was to make it appear as such to the reader.
Oh, just like my bank does with third party marketing. Fraud is a crime, but far more leeway is given to corporations than individuals. I wonder if there were more direct access on policy by indiviudals if they would have resorted to the cowardly approach.
8:53 a.m.
Jun 29, '09
Any new news on this? Will you post a new post at this point if it emerges, Carla, since this thread is aging?
10:05 a.m.
Jun 29, '09
Not yet...still trying to acquire the original. I'm putting in some calls later today.
Jun 29, '09
If there are is no forgery or fraud involved, then how come 5 of those supposed signatories replied in writing that they did not authorize the representation of their organization in the letter in question?
To answer my own question, because 5 of those organizations did not authorize the use of their organization's name and image. If they want to they can press criminal charges of fraud unless there was a written contract with the perpetrator in question that allowed the perpetrator to write the letter in question.
You claim cowardice and straddling the fence, I see a written document in response from 5 organizations who did not authorize the use of their organization's name in a letter that was clearly not authorized by 5 of the 7 organizations.
May not be forgery, but clearly fraud from the evidence thus far.
<hr/>