final giusto investigative report #2 011608

8/20/2019 FINAL GIUSTO Investigative Report #2 011608

1/30

DPSST Investigation #2 - GIUSTO

Bernard GIUSTO DPSST# 07617

Investigation #2

Page 1 of 30 1/16/2008

Bernard GIUSTOInvestigation #2


2/30



Investigation #2

Page 2 of 30 1/16/2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. CASE IN BRIEF..................................................................................................................... 3

1. Allegations of misconduct .................................................................................................. 31) Allegation #1................................................................................................................... 32) Allegation #2................................................................................................................... 3

2. Investigative Team identified ............................................................................................. 3

B. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 41. DPSST Jurisdiction and Scope of Investigation ................................................................. 4

2. Background on Sheriff Bernard GIUSTO .......................................................................... 4

3. Findings Categories ............................................................................................................ 44. Preliminary Staff Discussion and Findings......................................................................... 5

C. REGULATORY STATUTES, ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND LEGAL CRITERIA ... 5

1. Statutes and Administrative Rules ...................................................................................... 5

1) Statutes and Rules establishing minimum standards ...................................................... 52) Statutory and regulatory authority to revoke for violation of moral fitness standards ... 5

3) Definition of Moral Fitness............................................................................................. 5

2. Standard of Proof ................................................................................................................ 63. Criminal Justice Code of Ethics.......................................................................................... 6

4. Brady Issues ........................................................................................................................ 6

D. MENTIONED PERSONS ...................................................................................................... 7E. EXHIBIT LIST ....................................................................................................................... 9F. Allegations Itemized ............................................................................................................. 12

1. Allegation 1: GIUSTO used a county vehicle for personal use on one or more occasions.

12

2. Allegation 2: GIUSTO’s statements to the public in 2004, as reported in 2007, that noone in state police command had ever questioned him about the affair [with Margie

GOLDSCHMIDT], and that his transfer out of Goldschmidt’s [security] detail was unrelated[to his affair with Margie GOLDSCHMIDT] are in direct conflict with statements obtained

during the course of the investigation. ...................................................................................... 13

G. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIVE ACTIONS TAKEN ................................................... 16H. Preliminary Interview Sequence, Questions, Summaries and Validation ............................ 20

1. Interview Sequence ........................................................................................................... 20

2. Interviews.......................................................................................................................... 211) Dianna COLLINSON Interview Summary .................................................................. 212) Bernard GIUSTO Interview Questions......................................................................... 23

3) Bernard GIUSTO Interview Summary ......................................................................... 234) Reginald MADSEN Interview Questions ..................................................................... 245) Reginald MADSEN Interview Summary ..................................................................... 24

6) LeRon HOWLAND Interview Questions..................................................................... 26

7) LeRon HOWLAND Interview Summary ..................................................................... 26


3/30



Investigation #2

Page 3 of 30 1/16/2008

A. CASE IN BRIEF

1. Allegations of misconduct

1) Allegation #1

On October 23, 2007, KING received a call from Dianna COLLINSON who asserted thatin 2005 GIUSTO had used a Multnomah County agency vehicle for personal use, to drive

Lee DOSS to Seattle for the weekend. COLLINSON also identified that in 2006, GIUSTO

may have used a Multnomah County agency vehicle for personal use. to drive Lee DOSS’sdaughter, Ashby, to Seattle.1 COLLINSON provided a series of emails to KING with

related documentation.2

On October 24, 2007, The Oregonian published an article, “Giusto’s job tangled with his

private life.” In this article, reporters Arthur Gregg SULZBERGER and Les ZAITZ

identified that GIUSTO used his Multnomah County agency vehicle for personal use; to

drive Lee DOSS to Seattle for the weekend.

3

2) Allegation #2

In the October 24, 2007 Oregonian article, reporters also stated, “In a 2004 interview,

GIUSTO told The Oregonian no one in state police command had ever questioned him

about the affair [with Margie GOLDSCHMIDT]. He also said his transfer out ofGOLDSCHMIDT’s detail was unrelated.” 4

Subsequent statements obtained during the investigation are in direct conflict withGIUSTO’s statements to the media.

2. Investigative Team identified

Based on the information above, the investigative team opened an investigation into these

allegations of misconduct. The investigative team was comprised of the following: DPSST

Investigators Theresa KING and Shirley PARSONS, DPSST Legal Services CoordinatorLorraine ANGLEMIER, Esq., and AAG Darin TWEEDT, Oregon Department of Justice,

whose role was to provide the team with legal advice.

The investigative team addressed the allegations to determine whether they are within

DPSST’s jurisdiction; if so, if there is evidence to substantiate them; and if substantiated,what the appropriate course of action should be.

1 Ex B.1

2 Ex B.2 – B.4

3 Ex B.9

4 Ex B.9


4/30



Investigation #2

Page 4 of 30 1/16/2008

B. OVERVIEW

The following information provides an overview of the scope of the investigation and the

related statutes and rules.

1. DPSST Jurisdiction and Scope of Investigation

This investigation is focused on the issues over which DPSST has jurisdiction; i.e.,whether any actions by GIUSTO violated the established standards for Oregon public

safety officers.

2. Background on Sheriff Bernard GIUSTO

GIUSTO began his public safety career on October 1, 1974, as a police officer with the

Oregon State Police. On January 1, 1985, GIUSTO was promoted to Sergeant and on

March 1, 1988, was reclassified to Lieutenant. On July 31, 1996, GIUSTO resigned fromthe Oregon State Police (OSP).

On August 1, 1996, GIUSTO was hired as the Chief of Police for the Gresham PoliceDepartment and served in this position until December 2, 2002.

GIUSTO was first elected in 2002 as the Sheriff of Multnomah County. On January 1,2003, he began serving in this position. In May of 2006, GIUSTO was re-elected to the

office of Sheriff.

During GIUSTO’s public safety career he has attained Basic, Intermediate, Advanced,

Supervisory, Management and Executive Police certificates. GIUSTO has approximately1,900 hours of state-reported public safety training.

5

3. Findings Categories

For the purposes of this investigation, the following categories have been used:

Referred:

• The conduct is within DPSST’s jurisdiction, and

• The conduct may have violated the established standards for Oregon public

safety officers, thereby requiring the matter to be forwarded to the PolicePolicy Committee for review.

Referred To Another Agency:

• The conduct is not within DPSST jurisdiction; or

5 Ex B.5


5/30



Investigation #2

Page 5 of 30 1/16/2008

• The conduct may be within DPSST’s jurisdiction but may be criminal;therefore DPSST refers case to appropriate jurisdiction for review; or

• The conduct may be within DPSST’s jurisdiction but may also be withinanother agency’s jurisdiction; therefore DPSST refers the case to the appropriate

jurisdiction for review.

4. Preliminary Staff Discussion and Findings

Staff concluded there was sufficient cause to refer Allegation 1 to Government Standardsand Practices and to the Oregon Department of Justice Criminal Justice Division for their

individual reviews.

Staff concluded there was sufficient cause to refer Allegation 2 to the Police Policy

Committee for review to determine if Bernard GIUSTO has fallen below the established

standards for Oregon public safety officers.

C. REGULATORY STATUTES, ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND LEGAL CRITERIA

1. Statutes and Administrative Rules

1) Statutes and Rules establishing minimum standards

ORS 181.640(1)(a) states that the Department and the Board shall establish minimum

standards for moral fitness for public safety personnel. OAR 259-008-0010(6) establishes

the minimum standards for moral fitness.

2) Statutory and regulatory authority to revoke for violation of moral fitness

standardsPursuant to ORS 181.640, ORS 181.661, ORS 181.662(1)(c) and OAR 259-008-0070(1)

and (3(C)6 the Department may revoke the certifications of a public safety officer who

does not meet the minimum standards for moral fitness established pursuant to ORS181.630, ORS 181.640(1)(a).

3) Definition of Moral Fitness

According to OAR 259-008-0010(6)(a), the phrase “lack of good moral fitness” means

“conduct not restricted to those acts that reflect moral turpitude but rather extending to

acts and conduct which would cause a reasonable person to have substantial doubts aboutthe individual’s honesty, fairness, respect for rights of others, or for the laws of the state

and/or nation.”7

6 Ex B.8

7 Ex. B.7


6/30



Investigation #2

Page 6 of 30 1/16/2008

Indicators of lack of moral fitness

Under OAR 259-008-0010(6)(b), the following are indicators of lack of goodmoral fitness:

• Illegal conduct involving moral turpitude;

• Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation;

•

Intentional deception or fraud or attempted deception or fraud in anyapplication, examination, or other document for securing certification oreligibility for certification;

• Conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

• Conduct that adversely reflects on his or her fitness to perform as a lawenforcement officer. Examples include but are not limited to: Intoxicationwhile on duty, untruthfulness, unauthorized absences from duty not involving

extenuating circumstances, or a history of personal habits off the job which

would affect the officer’s performance on the job which makes the officerboth inefficient and otherwise unfit to render effective service because of the

agency’s and/or public’s loss of confidence in the officer’s ability to perform

competently.

2. Standard of Proof

The standard of proof on this matter is a preponderance of evidence; evidence that is of

greater weight and more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition to it; moreprobable than not.8

3. Criminal Justice Code of Ethics

Regarding the Criminal Justice Code of Ethics, to be eligible for certification OAR 259-

008-0070, a police officer must subscribe to and swear or affirm to abide by the Code of

Ethics (Form F-11). This Code states in part, “Honest in thought and deed in both mypersonal and official life, I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the

regulations of my department.”9

4. Brady Issues

At the request of KING, ANGLEMIER and LORANCE provided the document,

“Truthfulness and Public Safety Professionals – Court Decisions.

10

8 Oregon Attorney General’s Administrative Law Manual and Uniform Model Rules of Procedure under the

Administrative Procedures Act, Standard of Proof, p. 142 (2006)9 Ex. B.6

10 Ex. B.28


7/30



Investigation #2

Page 7 of 30 1/16/2008

D. MENTIONED PERSONS

Name Phone Address

ANGLEMIER, Lorraine

Legal Services Coordinator

503 378 2214

[email protected]

DPSST

4190 Aumsville Hwy SE

Salem, Oregon 97317

BERSIN, Ron

Director

503 378 5105 Government Standards andPractices Commission

885 Summer Avenue NE

Salem, Oregon 97301

BUDNICK, NICK

Reporter

503 546 5145

[email protected]

om

Portland Tribune

6605 S.E. Lake Road

Portland, Oregon 97222

BUNSEN, Michael

COLLINSON, Ashby

COLLINSON, Dianna 503 939 9533

[email protected]

COLLINSON, Scott

DOSS, Lee 503 221 1116 1210 SW Myrtle Drive


GIUSTO, Bernard

MCSO Sheriff

(503 988 - 4300 MCSO

501 SE Hawthorne Blvd,

Suite 350Portland, Oregon 97214

GABLIKS, Eriks

DPSST Deputy Director

503 378 2332

[email protected]

DPSST


Salem, Oregon 97317

GOLDSCHMIDT, Margie 503 281 3096 3233 NE 32nd Pl


GOLDSCHMIDT, Neil 503 206 6199 1150 King SW Avenue


HOWLAND, LeRon

Retired Oregon State

Police Superintendent

503 581 4209 240 Kanuku Street SE

Salem, Oregon 97306


8/30



Investigation #2

Page 8 of 30 1/16/2008

KING, Theresa

DPSST Investigator

503 378 2305

[email protected]

DPSST


Salem, Oregon 97317

LORANCE, Marilyn

DPSST Supervisor ofStandards and Certification

503 378 2427

[email protected]

DPSST


Salem, Oregon 97317

MADSEN, Reginald

Retired Oregon State

Police Superintendent

541 963 2846 62455 Fruitdale Lane

La Grande, Oregon 97850

McCAIN, BRUCE

MCSO Lieutenant,

Executive Staff

503 572 7768 Nextel

503 988 4325

MCSO

501 SE Hawthorne Blvd,

Suite 350

Portland, Oregon 97214MINNIS, John

DPSST Director

503 378 2042

[email protected]

DPSST


Salem, Oregon 97317

NORMAN, Alex 503 939 5652

PARSONS, Shirley

DPSST Investigator

503 378 2305

[email protected]

DPSST


Salem, Oregon 97317

SULZBERGER, ArthurGregg

Reporter

[email protected]

an.com

Oregonian1320 SW Broadway

Portland, OR 97201

TWEEDT, Darin

Assistant Attorney General

503 378 6347

[email protected]

Oregon Department of

Justice

610 Hawthorne Avenue SE

Salem, Oregon 97310

ZAITZ, Les

Reporter

1-503-585-0985

(PDX) 503-221-8181

503 329 0637

541 421 3031

[email protected]

Oregonian

1320 SW Broadway

Portland, OR 97201


9/30



Investigation #2

Page 9 of 30 1/16/2008

E. EXHIBIT LIST

Exhibit Date Description

B.1 10 23 07 13-pg transcript of telephone conversation with COLLINSONB.2 10 23 07 2-pg email from COLLINSON to KING

B.3 10 23 07 Email from COLLINSON to KING

B.4 10 23 07 2-pg email to/from KING/COLLINSON

B.5 12 11 07 5-pg DPSST Employee Profile - GIUSTO

B.6 F-11 Criminal Justice Code of Ethics

B.7 2-pg OAR 259-008-0010

B.8 9-pg OAR 259-008-0070

B.9 10 24 07 The Oregonian news article, “Giusto’s job tangled with his private

life”

B.10 10 24 07 Email to/from KING/KARL – contact information on

MADSEN/HOWLAND

B.11.a 10 24 07 Certified Letter from KING to MADSEN

B.11.b 10 29 07 Certified Mail Return Receipt - MADSEN

B.12.a 10 24 07 Certified Letter from KING to HOWLAND

B.12.b 10 29 07 Certified Mail Return Receipt - HOWLAND

B.13 11 01 07 13-pg interview of Reginald MADSEN

B.14 11 01 07 14-pg interview of LeRon HOWLAND

B.15 11 07 07 2-pg Email from KING to Investigative Team

B.16 11 07 07 Email to/from BUDNICK/MINNIS – McCAIN as DPSST instructor

B.17 11 07 07 Letter from McCAIN to MINNIS – McCAIN as DPSST instructor

B.18 11 09 07 2-pg LORANCE memo to file – 10 26 07 meeting with McCain and

KING

B.19 11 08 07 Letter from KING to TWEEDT – criminal referral

B.20 11 08 07 Letter from KING to BERSIN – ethics referral

B.21 11 08 07 Letter from TWEEDT to McCAIN – conflict concerns

B.22 11 12 07 2-pg Letter from McCAIN to TWEEDT – response to conflict


10/30



Investigation #2

Page 10 of 30 1/16/2008

concerns

B.23 12 03 07 Letter from KING to TWEEDT – GIUSTO Deposition

B.24 12 03 07 Letter from KING to BERSIN – GIUSTO Deposition

B.25 10 06 06 Excerpts of GIUSTO deposition in JEDDELOH divorce proceedings

B.26 11 30 07 18-pg transcript of conversation with McCAIN

B.27 12 03 07 Email from LORANCE to KING – Recollections of 10 26 07

meeting with McCAIN/KING/LORANCE, with attachment

B.28 2-pg article “Truthfulness and Public Safety Professionals – Court

Decisions”

B.29.a 12 04 07 Certified letter from KING to GIUSTO

B.29.b 12 05 07 Certified Mail Return Receipt - GIUSTO

B.30 12 04 07 Fax Cover from KING to GIUSTO

B.31 12 04 07 Fax verification of sent document

B.32 12 04 07 Fax Cover from KING to McCAIN

B.33.a 12 14 07 Letter from KING to GIUSTO, certified mail

B.33.b Stipulated Order Revoking Certification

B.33.c 12 18 07 Certified Mail Return Receipt

B.34.a 12 14 07 Fax Cover to Giusto

B.34.b 12 14 07 Fax Report, not responding

B.34.c 12 14 07 Fax Report, not responding

B.34.d 12 14 07 Fax Report, busy no signal

B.34.e 12 14 07 Fax Report, busy no signal

B.34.f 12 14 07 Fax Cover to McCAIN

B.34.g 12 14 07 Fax Report, not responding

B.34.h 12 14 07 Fax Report, busy no signal

B.34.i 12 14 07 Email to/from KING/MOYER

B.35 12 15 07 Oregonian article

B.36 12 18 07 Email to/from KING/McCAIN

B.37 12 19 07 KING memo to file, redacted information from investigation

B.38 01 14 08 Email to/from McCAIN/KING


11/30



Investigation #2

Page 11 of 30 1/16/2008

B.39 01 14 08 2-pg Affidavit of GIUSTO – Investigation #2

B.40 01 14 08 11-pg Bernard GIUSTO’s written response – Investigation #2

B.41 01 15 08 Oregonian article – credibility of reporter


12/30



Investigation #2

Page 12 of 30 1/16/2008

F. Allegations Itemized

1. Allegation 1: GIUSTO used a county vehicle for personal use on one or moreoccasions.

Investigative Team Discussion: The investigative team considered this allegation, to theextent of determining if the allegation had substance and if so, if it was within DPSST’s

jurisdiction. 11

Investigative Team Findings: The investigative team determined that this allegation should

properly be referred to Government Standards and Practices Commission for follow-up onpossible ethics violation,12 and to the Oregon Department of Justice Criminal Division for

follow-up on possible criminal conduct. 13

11 Ex B.1, B.9, B.15

12 Ex. B.20, letter to Government Standards and Practices Commission, follow up letter B.24, deposition B.25

13 Ex. B19, letter to Oregon Department of Justice Criminal Division, follow up letter B.23, deposition B.25


13/30



Investigation #2

Page 13 of 30 1/16/2008

2. Allegation 2: GIUSTO’s statements to the public in 2004, as reported in 2007, that noone in state police command had ever questioned him about the affair [withMargie GOLDSCHMIDT], and that his transfer out of Goldschmidt’s

[security] detail was unrelated [to his affair with Margie GOLDSCHMIDT]

are in direct conflict with statements obtained during the course of theinvestigation.

Investigative Team Discussion

At issue is whether GIUSTOs was truthful with the public when he stated that no one in the statepolice command had ever questioned him about his affair with Margie GOLDSCHMIDT, and

that his transfer out of the GOLDSCHMIDT security detail was unrelated to his affair with

Margie GOLDSCHMIDT.

The investigative team considers the public to include the citizens of Oregon and the media.

Investigative Team Research

Relevant Public Statement

On October 24, 2007, The Oregonian reported that GIUSTO told the Oregonian during an

interview in 2004 that no one in state police command had ever questioned him about his

affair [with Margie GOLDSCHMIDT] and that his transfer from the GOLDSCHMIDT’s[security] detail was unrelated [to his affair with Margie GOLDSCHMIDT].14

Relevant Investigator Interviews

On November 12, 2007, investigators spoke with former Oregon State Police

Superintendent Reginald MADSEN,15

who stated he recalled rumors “starting to flood

back into the State Police headquarters” and that the substance of the rumors was thatGIUSTO and Margie GOLDSCHMIDT were having an affair. MADSEN stated he

“called him [GIUSTO] in, sat him down and asked him if he was having an affair with the

governor’s wife.”16

MADSEN said GIUSTO denied the affair.

Regarding the transfer of GIUSTO out of the governor’s security detail, MADSEN stated “

. . .I believe I told him [GIUSTO] then or maybe later that rumors were bad enough and itconcerned the governor’s office, and he was getting transferred out of there.”17 MADSEN

stated that he then transferred GIUSTO out of the assignment.

14 Ex. B.9

15 Ex. B.13

16 Ex b.13, p 4

17 E B.13, p 4


14/30



Investigation #2

Page 14 of 30 1/16/2008

On November 1, 2007, investigators spoke with former Oregon State Police

Superintendent LeRon HOWLAND.18

He could not recall whether he was the deputysuperintendent or the superintendent at the time, but he did ask GIUSTO if there was

anything to the rumors and GIUSTO “just advised me that they were good friends, but

there was absolutely nothing . . .there was no intimate relationship.”19

HOWLAND stated that when he asked GIUSTO about his relationship with Margie

GOLDSCHMIDT, it was not as a part of a formal interview, but a casual matter. Thematter had already been handled by MADSEN, and GIUSTO had been transferred out of

the unit.

On November 30, 2007, PARSONS and KING contacted Bruce McCAIN, attorney for

GIUSTO, and asked to speak with Bernard GIUSTO20 about the October 24, 2007

Oregonian article.21

Subsequent to the conversation with McCAIN, Marilyn LORANCE,

Standards and Certification Supervisor, provided additional documentation refuting anumber of McCAIN’s assertions during the telephone conversation. LORANCE had

prepared file notes after a meeting with McCAIN on October 26, 2007.

22

On December 4, 2007, KING mailed GIUSTO a follow-up letter, and faxed it to GIUSTO

and McCAIN, asking to meet with GIUSTO.23

Although provided an opportunity to meet

with investigators, 24

GIUSTO has not contacted investigators.

On December 14, 2007, KING mailed GIUSTO a letter advising him of the additional

allegations, and allowing him 30 days to provide a response to the Policy Committee.25

This letter was also faxed to GIUSTO and McCAIN.26

There were several unsuccessfulattempts to fax this document to McCAIN and GIUSTO and it was ultimately emailed to

Catherine MOYER, GIUSTO’s assistant.27

On December 15, 2007, The Oregonian reported, “Though Giusto met with police

standards investigators on the earlier allegations, he won’t agree to undergo questioning

about the new allegation, McCain said. ‘The sheriff is not going to discuss MargieGoldschmidt.’” 28

18 Ex. B.14

19

Ex B.14, p 620 Ex. B.29, B.30

21 Ex. B.26

22 Ex B.27, B.28

23 Ex. B29a – B32

24 Ex. B.29

25 Ex B.33a – B.33c

26 Ex B.34a – B.34i

27 Ex B.34.i

28 Ex B.35


15/30



Investigation #2

Page 15 of 30 1/16/2008

Investigative Team Analysis:

Retired Oregon State Police Superintendents Reginald MADSEN and LeRon HOWLAND both

identified specific occasions on which they asked GIUSTO if he was having an affair with

Margie GOLDSCHMDIT. MADSEN also asserted that although GIUSTO denied having an

affair with Margie GOLDSCHMIDT, “ . . .I believe I told him then or maybe later that therumors were bad enough and it concerned the governor’s office, and he was getting transferred

out of there.”29

The relevant issue is not whether GIUSTO was having an affair, a relationship, or was just good

friends with Margie GOLDSCHMIDT while he was working the security detail for NeilGOLDSCHMIDT. At issue is whether OSP command staff asked GIUSTO about the affair.

Also at issue is whether GIUSTO was transferred out as a result of the rumors about an affair and

whether GIUSTO was aware of this reason for the transfer.

Investigative Team Findings:

GIUSTO’s statements to the public in 2004, as reported in 2007, that he had not been questionedby anyone in state police command about his affair with Margie GOLDSCHMIDT, and that his

transfer out of the GOLDSCHMIDT security detail was unrelated to his affair with Margie

GOLDSCHMIDT, are in direct conflict with statements obtained during the investigation. Thisis conduct within DPSST’s jurisdiction. Therefore this allegation will be referred to the Police

Policy Committee to determine if GIUSTO’s conduct violated the established standards for

Oregon public safety officers.

29 Ex B.13, p 4, Ex D, Allegation 2


16/30



Investigation #2

Page 16 of 30 1/16/2008

G. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIVE ACTIONS TAKEN

The following entries denote the chronological investigation

October 23, 2007

•

KING interview with COLLINSON

30

• Emails to/from KING/COLLINSON

31

• KING obtains relevant OAR’s and related documents to investigation32

October 24, 2007

• Investigative Team review of The Oregonian article33

• KING requests/receives contact information from DOJ Watch Center – MADSENand HOWLAND

34

• KING sends certified letter to MADSEN35

• KING sends certified letter to HOWLAND36

October 26, 2007• KING/LORANCE/McCAIN meeting – Investigation #1 issues, process for new

allegations37

October 29, 2007

• Certified Mail Return Receipt – MADSEN38

• Certified Mail Return Receipt – HOWLAND39

November 1, 2007

• PARSONS/KING Interview of Reginald MADSEN40

• PARSONS/KING Interview LeRon HOWLAND41

November 2, 2007

• PARSONS – Case review

November 5, 2007


30 Ex. B.1

31 Ex. B.2 – B.4

32

Ex. B.5 – B.833 Ex. B.9

34 Ex. B.10

35 Ex. B.11.a

36 Ex. B.12.a

37 Ex. B.18

38 Ex. B.11.b

39 Ex. B.12.b

40 Ex. B.13

41 Ex. B.14


17/30



Investigation #2

Page 17 of 30 1/16/2008

November 6, 2007


November 7, 2007

• ANGLEMIER – legal research

•

KING email to Investigative Team – Update42

• Email to/from BUDNICK/MINNIS – McCAIN instructor

43

• Letter from McCAIN to MINNIS - instructor44


November 8, 2007

• ANGLEMIER – correspondence on legal research

• KING letter to TWEEDT – Criminal referral45

• KING letter to BERSIN – Ethics referral46

• TWEEDT letter to McCAIN – concerns47

November 9, 2007• LORANCE memo to file, McCAIN’s status as DPSST instructor

48

November 12, 2007

• McCAIN response to TWEEDT49

November 16, 2007


• ANGLEMIER – Case review

November 30, 2007

•

PARSONS/KING conversation with McCAIN50

November 20, 2007


November 21, 2007


November 26, 2007

• KING – Case preparation

42 Ex. B.15

43 Ex. B.16

44 Ex. B.1

45 Ex. B.19

46 Ex. B.20

47 Ex. B.21

48 Ex. B.21

49 Ex. B.22

50 Ex. B.26


18/30



Investigation #2

Page 18 of 30 1/16/2008

November 27, 2007

• Case preparation

November 28, 2007

•

PARSONS – Case review• ANGLEMIER – Case review

December 3, 2007



• Email from LORANCE to KING, documenting prior conversation with McCAIN51

• KING receipt of excerpts of GIUSTO deposition from PARSONS52

• KING letter to TWEEDT – follow up on criminal referral with attachment53

• KING letter to BERSIN – follow up on criminal referral with attachment54

December 4, 2007

•

Certified letter from KING to GIUSTO – request for interview55 • KING fax letter to GIUSTO and McCAIN

56

December 5, 2007

• Certified Mail Return Receipt - GIUSTO57

December 14, 2007

• Certified letter from King to GIUSTO – notification of additional allegation

• Fax attempts to GIUSTO, McCAIN58

• Email letter to GIUSTO through MOYER, receipt confirmed

December 11, 2007

• KING – Case review

December 15, 2007

• Oregonian article – GIUSTO will not talk to investigators59

December 18, 2007

• Email to/from KING/McCAIN60

• Memo to file – redacted information relating to potential criminal case.

51

Ex. B.2752 Ex. B.25

53 Ex. B.23

54 Ex. B.24

55 Ex. B.29.a

56 Ex. B.30 – B.32

57 Ex. B.29.b

58 Ex B.34a. – B.34.h

59 Ex B.35

60 Ex B.36


19/30



Investigation #2

Page 19 of 30 1/16/2008

December 20, 2007

• KING – Case review

December 26, 2007

•

KING/PARSONS Case preparation

December 27, 2007

• ANGLEMIER, LORANCE, PARSONS and KING – Case Preparation

December 28, 2007

• ANGLEMIER, LORANCE, PARSONS and KING – Case Preparation

January 10, 2008

• KING/LORANCE – Case preparation

January 11, 2008• KING/LORANCE – Case preparation

January 14, 2008

• KING receipt of McCAIN/GIUSTO email response with attachments (Affidavitand 11-pg response)

• KING/LORANCE – Case preparation

January 15, 2008

• KING/LORANCE/ANGLEMIER/TWEEDT – Case Review

• KING – Receipt of Oregonian article – reporter credibility


20/30



Investigation #2

Page 20 of 30 1/16/2008

H. Preliminary Interview Sequence, Questions, Summaries and Validation

The interview questions were provided as a guideline to identify general areas of investigatory

discussion. The method of interview, the sequence of questions, and the ultimate questions

remain the prerogative of the lead interviewer, PARSONS.

1. Interview Sequence

Interviewee Date

Dianna COLLINSON 10 23 07

Reginald MADSEN 11 01 07

LeRon HOWLAND 11 01 07

Bernard GIUSTO


21/30



Investigation #2

Page 21 of 30 1/16/2008

2. Interviews

1) Dianna COLLINSON Interview Summary

On October 23, 2007, Dianna COLLINSON contacted KING via telephone atDPSST for the purpose of providing information about potential misconduct byBernard GIUSTO. Just prior to this telephone contact, Jim JEDDELOH contacted

DPSST to advise Dianna COLLINSON may have information and may be

contacting DPSST.

Dianna COLLINSON is currently married to the former husband of Lee DOSS,

Steven COLLINSON. Steven COLLINSON and Lee DOSS had children together.

According to Dianna COLLINSON, shortly after the intervention of JimJEDDELOH, Ashby COLLINSON, Steven COLLINSON and LEE DOSS’s

daughter, told Dianna and Steven COLLINSON that GIUSTO had taken Lee DOSS

to Seattle, to the Four Seasons Hotel.61

Dianna COLLINSON stated during that trip, Lee DOSS and GIUSTO “stopped at

Alex’s and Ashby’s [COLLINSON] apartment so Lee could introduce the kids toBernie.” Dianna COLLINSON said that DOSS and GIUSTO did not stay at the

apartment, and identified “Alex” as Ashby’s boyfriend.62

Dianna COLLINSON was not sure how long DOSS and GIUSTO stayed in Seattle,characterizing it as “the weekend.” When asked who took care of Lee DOSS’s

children, Dianna COLLINSON stated, “Scott did.” Dianna COLLINSON confirmed

that “Scott” is the son of Lee DOSS and Steven COLLINSON, and Ashby

COLLINSON told Dianna COLLINSON that Scott had cared for Lee DOSS’schildren that weekend.63

Dianna COLLINSON said that Ashby has a couple of “blogs” and in one of them she

talked about “Bernie took the police vehicle – SUV – to Seattle to actually move

Ashby there.”64

Dianna COLLINSON could not provide a license plate number, butdid state she could access Ashby’s “blogs” Dianna COLLINSON offered to send

KING the “blogs.”. When asked to confirm that Lee DOSS was with GIUSTO when

he took the SUV police vehicle to Seattle, Dianna COLLINSON stated, “Yes. And

actually Ashby refers to both Bernie and Lee as her parents.”65

DiannaCOLLINSON was unaware of any business that GIUSTO may have had in Seattle.

When asked to confirm when the trip occurred, Dianna COLLINSON stated, “a yearago September.” Dianna COLLINSON confirmed the trip occurred in September

61 Ex B.1, p 2, p. 3 line 13-14

62 Ex B.1, p 3

63 Ex B.1, p 4

64 Ex B.1, p 5

65 Ex B.1, p 6


22/30



Investigation #2

Page 22 of 30 1/16/2008

2006. Dianna COLLINSON also explained that Ashby COLLINSON returned for

her last year of school.66

Steven COLLINSON believed that Ashby COLLINSON moved into a different

apartment than the prior year. Dianna COLLINSON explained that “Ashby’s”

boyfriend, Alex NORMAN moved out of state, leaving Ashby COLLINSON in theapartment and she then moved home for the summer and in with her other boyfriend.

When asked about the purpose of the trip, Dianna COLLINSON confirmed that it

was to move “Ashby’s” belongings back to Seattle. When asked how many

belongings Ashby COLLINSON had, Dianna COLLINSON stated that she broughtAshby COLLINSON home [at the end of her prior school year] and they took a

small U-Haul and the back of their SUV was full. Dianna COLLINSON said that

Ashby COLLINSON did leave a lot of her belongings at her boyfriend’s home.

When asked if Ashby COLLINSON moved more than clothing, DiannaCOLLINSON confirmed Ashby COLLINSON did, and Steven COLLINSON

recalled Ashby COLLINSON likely took her guitar and television. DiannaCOLLINSON also thought Ashby COLLINSON took her computer.67

Dianna COLLINSON stated that Ashby COLLINSON had more than one “blog” and

KING asked if COLLINSON could send that information. COLLINSON identifiedMichael BUNSON as the boyfriend who would have witnessed GIUSTO packing

“Ashby’s” personal items into the “sheriff’s SUV.” Dianna COLLINSON provided

the telephone number of NORMAN.68

Dianna COLLINSON also provided her

contact information.

66 Ex B.1, p 7

67 Ex B.1, p 9

68 Ex B.1, p 11


23/30



Investigation #2

Page 23 of 30 1/16/2008

2) Bernard GIUSTO Interview Questions

BackgroundSee Section B.2

1. Did anyone in state police command ever question you about your affair

with Margie Goldschmidt?2.

If so, who?

3. If so, what did they question you about?

4. Why were you transferred out of the Neil Goldschmidt security detail?5.

Did anyone in state police command ever tell you that you were being

transferred out because of your affair with Margie Goldschmidt, or because

of rumors of your affair with her?6.

If so, who?

3)

Bernard GIUSTO Interview Summary

Although provided an opportunity to meet with investigators, GIUSTO has notcontacted investigators.69 On December 15, 2007, the Oregonian reported,

“Though Giusto met with police standards investigators on the earlier allegations,

he won’t agree to undergo questioning about the new allegation, McCain said. ‘The

sheriff is not going to discuss Margie Goldschmidt.’” 70

69 Ex. B.29

70 Ex B.35


24/30



Investigation #2

Page 24 of 30 1/16/2008

4) Reginald MADSEN Interview Questions

Reginald MADSEN was the Oregon State Police Superintendent from 1990 to1993

1. Are you aware of anyone in state police command who ever questioned

GIUSTO about his affair with Margie Goldschmidt?2.

If so, who?

3. If so, what did they question him about?

4. Why was GIUSTO transferred out of the Neil Goldschmidt security detail?5.

Did anyone in state police command ever tell GIUSTO that he was being

transferred out because of his affair with Margie Goldschmidt, or because of

rumors of his affair with her?6.

If so, who?

5)

Reginald MADSEN Interview Summary

On November 1, 2007, PARSONS and KING conducted a telephonic interview

with retired Oregon State Police Superintendent Reginald MADSEN for thepurpose of fact finding. PARSONS referred MADSEN to a statement the

Oregonian attributed to GIUSTO, that no one in the State Police ever questioned

him about his relationship with Mrs. Goldschmidt.71

In response, MADSEN stated,

“I did.” When asked if MADSEN was the superintendent at the time GIUSTO wasthe driver for GOLDSCHMIDT, MADSEN stated he was for part of the time.

MADSEN recalled rumors were “starting to flood back into the State Police

headquarters.”72

When asked what the substance of the rumors was, MADSEN

recollected that rumors were floating around that GIUSTO and the governor’s wifewere having an affair.

MADSEN stated, “With that information I called him in, sat him down and asked

him if he was having an affair with the governor’s wife.” MADSEN said that

GIUSTO denied it. MADSEN stated, “But I believe I told him then or maybe laterthat rumors were bad enough and it concerned the governor’s office, and he was

getting transferred out of there.”73

When asked if MADSEN did transfer GIUSTO out, he stated that he did.MADSEN was asked what the result would have been if GIUSTO had told him

that he was having an affair with Mrs. GOLDSCHMIDT. MADSEN said that theywould have taken disciplinary action, “whether it amounted to some type ofdiscipline, firing, transferred, demotion.” When asked if GIUSTO had a good

71 Ex B.13, p 3

72 Ex. B.13, p 3

73 Ex B.13, p 4


25/30



Investigation #2

Page 25 of 30 1/16/2008

reason to lie, if he were having a relationship, knowing that he would have been

disciplined, MADSEN stated, “Oh, you can bet on that . . . Yes he would have.”74

When asked if MADSEN thought GIUSTO was being truthful when he talked with

GIUSTO about the relationship, MADSEN stated GIUSTO was “pretty sincere”

and all he had were rumors. MADSEN stated it was at a later time that peoplewere telling him that “they [GIUSTO and Margie GOLDSCHMIDT] were going

out.”75

When asked a clarifying question, that when MADSEN was talking about an affair,

he was implying that GIUSTO was having an intimate sexual relationship withMrs. GOLDSCHMIDT, MADSEN stated, ‘That’s absolutely what was being

implied.”76

When asked about GIUSTO’s promotion, MADSEN stated he did not thinkGIUSTO went through a promotion board but he recalled that the governor’s

drivers were promoted.

When asked about how MADSEN called GIUSTO in, MADSEN characterized it

as “He was summoned to my office.” MADSEN did not recall if there was anyone

else present.77

MADSEN stated that if GIUSTO had said yes [about the affair] hewould have been put on administrative leave and the case investigated. When

asked if there were any problems as a result of GIUSTO having the alleged

relationship with Mrs. GOLDSCHMIDT, MADSEN said, “ . . .when he was

transferred out of there, probably the first thing that came up later was when . . ..the governor and his wife separated . . .” MADSEN did not recall where he heard

the information.

When asked if MADSEN asked GIUSTO more than once, or in different ways,

about GIUSTO having an affair with Mrs. GOLDSCHMIDT, MADSEN could not

recall the details , but stated, “I know absolutely I asked him if he was having anaffair with the governor’s wife and he was emphatic, and very strongly denied it.78

MADSEN confirmed that he had contact with GIUSTO about this issue on one

occasion, and that GIUSTO was transferred out of that office because of therumors.79 MADSEN confirmed he did not talk to any other State troopers assigned

to the governor’s office about the rumors nor did he direct an investigation; he

handled it directly himself. MADSEN concluded, “All I can add to that wholemess is I asked him. He denied it. And that resulted in his transfer.”

74 Ex B.13, p 5

75 Ex B.13. p 6

76 Ex B.13, p 7

77 Ex B.13, p 8

78 Ex B.13, p 9

79 Ex B.13, p 10


26/30



Investigation #2

Page 26 of 30 1/16/2008

6) LeRon HOWLAND Interview Questions

LeRon HOWLAND was the Oregon State Police Superintendent from 1993 –

1999.

1.

Are you aware of anyone in state police command who ever questioned

GIUSTO about his affair with Margie Goldschmidt?

2. If so, who?3.

If so, what did they question him about?

4.

Why was GIUSTO transferred out of the Neil Goldschmidt security detail?

5. Did anyone in state police command ever tell GIUSTO that he was beingtransferred out because of his affair with Margie Goldschmidt, or because of

rumors of his affair with her?

6. If so, who?

7)

LeRon HOWLAND Interview Summary

On November 1, 2007, PARSONS and KING conducted a telephonic interview

with retired Oregon State Police Superintendent LeRon HOWLAND for the

purpose of fact finding. HOWLAND stated that when he was the superintendent,

GIUSTO was in the regional dispatch center in Portland and was later the publicinformation officer. HOWLAND indicated he had been superintendent from 1993

to 1999.80

HOWLAND confirmed that GIUSTO had worked in the governor’s office under

Superintendent MADSEN. During the time that GIUSTO worked in thegovernor’s office, HOWLAND was commander of District One, in Portland.HOWLAND was not sure of the dates when GIUSTO was the governor’s driver,

and confirmed that GIUSTO had already been promoted to Lieutenant when

HOWLAND became the superintendent.81

When asked if HOWLAND spoke with GIUSTO about him having a relationship

with Mrs. GOLDSCHMIDT when Neil GOLDSCHMIDT was the governor,

HOWLAND stated, “Yeah, I believe so.”82

HOWLAND could not recall if he wasthe deputy superintendent, or the superintendent, but he did ask GIUSTO if there

was anything to the rumor and GIUSTO told him that they [he and Mrs.

GOLDSCHMIDT] were just good friends, there was no intimate relationship.

When asked what rumors HOWLAND heard, he stated in his position with the

State Police, he would not divulge rumors about a governor or any citizen, if itwere a rumor. HOWLAND stated that if there were a complaint involving criminal

80 Ex B.14 p. 3

81 Ex B.14 p.4

82 Ex B.14 p.5


27/30



Investigation #2

Page 27 of 30 1/16/2008

activity, or potential criminal activity, or an internal complaint that could have

involved impropriety, that would have been investigated.83

When investigatorPARSONS asked HOWLAND when he spoke with GIUSTO if he had heard

rumors that GIUSTO was involved in an intimate relationship with Mrs.

GOLDSCHMIDT, HOWLAND stated, “I have heard rumors that . . . perhaps he

was . . . when I asked him about that. . more from a personnel matter than anythingelse, . . .it had already been looked at by the superintendent . . .he advised that . .

.there was nothing to that. . . that he and Margie developed a friendship, but therewas no intimacy involved.”84 HOWLAND confirmed that the matter had already

been handled by the previous superintendent, stating, “Superintendent Madsen

would have been the one that transferred Bernie out of there.”85

When asked ifHOWLAND knew the reason for GIUSTO’s transfer, HOWLAND said, “there

were rumors floating around . . .I can’t speak for Superintendent MADSEN, but

that would have been a prudent thing to do.”

When investigator PARSONS asked HOWLAND whether anything would have

happened differently to GIUSTO if GIUSTO had told him he had a relationship[with Mrs. GOLDSCHMIDT], HOWLAND stated, “Yes, that would have violatedour code of conduct and ethics of our department . . .if he would have admitted that

he had a relationship while he was in an official capacity . . .of protecting the

governor and the governor’s family . . .that would have caused . . .an internalinvestigation . . . there would have been appropriate disciplinary action.” 86

HOWLAND said that he had asked GIUSTO about his relationship, not through a

formal interview but a casual one, since it had already been handled and“MADSEN had already transferred him out of the unit and he was in another

capacity . . .I just asked him one day.” HOWLAND said that it was not an official

inquiry, but depending on his [GIUSTO’s] answer, “it could have been.”HOWLAND confirmed that had GIUSTO told him he was having a relationship,

GIUSTO would have been in trouble. HOWLAND stated, “If he had said, ‘Yes, I

did,’ there would have been a personnel investigation. Absolutely.” 87

HOWLAND said that “we’re going to presume that a State trooper is honest at all

times,” therefore, when GIUSTO denied the relationship, he had no reason not to

believe him and there was nothing to support not believing him. HOWLAND saidhe learned that at a later point GIUSTO and Mrs. GOLDSCHMIDT were dating.

When asked if the Oregonian report, that said GIUSTO denied ever being asked byanyone within the state police about his relationship with Margie GOLDSCHMIDT

was accurate, HOWLAND asked if that was what GIUSTO had said.88

83 Ex B.14 p.6

84 Ex. B13 p 7

85 Ex B13, p 7

86 Ex B.13, p 8

87 Ex B.13. p 9

88 Ex B13, p 10


28/30



Investigation #2

Page 28 of 30 1/16/2008

HOWLAND stated he had read that in paper and “I know I asked him at one time.

I know that.”89

HOWLAND asked about the scope of the investigation, in terms of GIUSTO’s

honesty. HOWLAND said that GIUSTO’s performance reviews would show he

did a very good job and that he has never known GIUSTO to be dishonest.

90

End of conversation

89

Ex B13. p. 1190

Ex B13, p 12


29/30



Investigation #2

Page 29 of 30 1/16/2008

INDEX

A

agency vehicle · 3Allegation 1 · 5, 12

Allegation 2 · 5, 13ANGLEMIER · 3, 6, 7Ashby · 3

B

BERSIN · 7, 9, 10, 17, 18

Brady Issues · 6BUDNICK · 7, 9, 17

C

Code of Ethics · 6COLLINSON · 3, 7, 9, 16

D

DOSS · 3, 7DPSST · 4, 7, 8DPSST Investigator · 8

F

F-11 Criminal Justice Code of Ethics · 9

G

GABLIKS · 3GIUSTO · 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22,

23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28

GOLDSCHMIDT · 3, 13, 14, 15, 24, 25, 26, 27Government Standards and Practices Commission · 12Gresham Police Department · 4

H

HOWLAND · 7, 9, 14, 16, 20, 26, 27, 28

I

Investigation #1 · 3, 16Investigative Team · 3, 13, 15

J

JEDDELOH · 10

K

KING · 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26

L

LORANCE · 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19

M

MADSEN · 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27Margie GOLDSCHMIDT · 3, 7, 13, 15McCAIN · 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 18

MCSO · 7, 8media · 15MINNIS · 8

N

Neil GOLDSCHMIDT · 7

O

OAR 259-008-0010 · 5, 6OAR 259-008-0070 · 5, 6Oregon Department of Justice · 8

Oregon Department of Justice Criminal Division · 5, 12Oregon State Police · 4ORS 181.630 · 5ORS 181.640 · 5

ORS 181.662 · 5OSP · 4

P

PARSONS · 3, 8, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 26, 27Police Policy Committee · 4, 5, 15

preponderance of evidence · 6

R

Referred · 4Referred To Another Agency · 4


30/30


S

Seattle · 3Sheriff · 4, 7

Sheriff of Multnomah County · 4standard of proof · 6Standard of Proof · 6SULZBERGER · 3, 8

T

The Oregonian · 3, 9, 13, 14, 16

Truthfulness and Public Safety Professionals – CourtDecisions · 6, 10

TWEEDT · 3, 8

U

untruthfulness · 3, 6

Z

ZAITZ · 3, 8

final giusto investigative report #2 011608

Documents