stoll berne - oregonlive.com

STOLL BERNE STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING &. SHLACHTER P.C. LAWYERS

May 28, 2015

VIA EMAIL AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

Jeanne P. Atkins Oregon Secretary of State 136 State Capitol Salem, OR 97310

Jim Williams, Director Elections Division 255 Capital Street NE, Suite 501 Salem, OR 97310

Steven C. Berman [email protected]

Re: Complaint for Oregon Elections Law Violations by: Oregon Citizens to Recall Representative Val Hoyle; Baker's Shoe Company, GunRunner Arms, Oak Grove Guns, and S-M Gun Shop

Dear Secretary Atkins and Mr. Williams:

I write on the behalf of Ben Unger and Jason Kilgore. Mr. Unger is an Oregon elector, and Executive Director of Our Oregon. Mr. Kilgore is an Oregon elector, and a resident of Oregon House District 14 ("HD 14"). Val Hoyle is the state Representative for HD 14. This letter constitutes a formal complaint pursuant to ORS 260.345.

This Complaint pertains to alleged improper activity regarding circulation of the petition to recall Representative Val Hoyle (the "Recall Petition"). This Complaint is against: Oregon Citizens to Recall Representative Val Hoyle, a petition committee (the "Recall Committee"); Carol A. Russell, the Recall Committee's treasurer; Jason H. Thiesfeld, the Chief Petitioner for the Recall Committee; Baker's Shoe Company, Unlimited, in Eugene ("Baker's Shoe"); GunRunner Arms, in Junction City; Oak Grove Guns, in Eugene; and, S-M Gun Shop, in Eugene. For the purposes of this Complaint, Baker's Shoe, Gunrunner Arms, Oak Grove Guns and S-M Gun Shop collectively are referred to as the "Gun Stores."

As is set forth below and in the attached declarations, we believe that the Recall Committee, its associated individuals, the Gun Stores and their employees are engaged in paid petition circulation activity and have failed to comply with the requirements of Oregon law regarding registration, compensation and training of paid petition circulators. We believe that the Gun Stores and their employees may have violated 0 RS 260. 715 ( 1 ), regarding false swearing under election laws. We further believe that if the Recall Committee, the Chief Petitioner or their agent(s) submits for verification signature sheets that are being improperly circulated, the circulators and the Chief Petitioner also will have committed perjury, false

209 SW OAK STREET, SUITE 500 PORTLAND, OR 97204

Jeanne Atkins May 28, 2015

swearing and unsworn falsification, in violation of ORS 162.065, ORS 162.075, ORS 162.085. Those criminal acts are predicate acts sufficient to establish culpability for racketeering activity by the Chief Petitioner, the Recall Committee, the Gun Stores and their employees in violation of the Oregon Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, ORS 166.715, et seq. ("ORICO"). See, e.g., American Federation of Teachers v. Oregon Taxpayers United, 345 Or 1 (2008) (discussing ORI CO violations resulting from submission of improperly obtained signatures).

We request that the Secretary of State: ( 1) investigate this Complaint; (2) refer the allegations subject to penalty under ORS 260.993 to the Attorney General for prosecution; (3) reject any signatures submitted by the Recall Committee and Chief Petitioner obtained from May 1, 2015 until such time as the Recall Committee and Chief Petitioner can establish full compliance with Oregon law, including Oregon elections law; (4) prohibit the Recall Committee and Chief Petitioner from collecting any additional signatures until such time as they can establish full compliance with Oregon law, including Oregon elections law; and, (5) request that the Attorney General take all necessary action to prohibit and enjoin any actual or ongoing violations of Oregon law, including ORI CO.

Applicable Law Regarding Circulation of Recall Petitions for State Office Holders

Oregon law requires individuals who are compensated to circulate a recall petition for a state office holder to register with the Secretary of State and to meet certain legal requirements. The registration requirements are intended to protect Oregon electors from having their personal information improperly obtained and to protect the integrity of the initiative, referendum and recall process. ORS 250.048(1) provides:

"A person may not pay money or other valuable consideration to another person for obtaining signatures of electors on a state * * * recall petition * * *, and a person may not receive money or other valuable consideration for obtaining signatures of electors on a * * * state recall petition * * *, unless the person obtaining the signatures:

"(a) Registers with the Secretary of State in the manner prescribed by this section and by rule of the secretary; and,

"(b) Completes the training program prescribed by rule of the secretary." 1

1 A petition to recall a state representative is a "state * * * recall petition" within the meaning of ORS 250.048(1). See, e.g., ORS 249.002(10) (including "state Representative" within the definition of "state office" for the purposes of the recall statutes). See also Recall Manual at 4 (listing "State Representative" as a "State Public Office" as opposed to a "Local Public Office"); Circulator Training Manual at 9 (providing that anyone paid to circulate a "state recall" petition must register with the elections division).


ORS 250.048(2) sets forth the registration requirements for any paid signature circulator. The person who will be paid to collect signatures must complete an application providing his or her name, address, a sample signature, a photograph, and a list of the petitions s/he will be circulating. ORS 250.048(2)(a)-(e), (i). The applicant must also certify thats/he has read and understands applicable Oregon law regarding paid signature collection and that s/he has completed the Secretary of State's training program regarding paid signature collection. ORS 250.048(2)(g), (h). A person cannot become a paid signature circulator ifs/he has, within the prior five years, been convicted of fraud, forgery or identity theft, or violated certain Oregon election laws. ORS 250.048(4).

ORS 250.048(2) also sets forth certain requirements for the Chief Petitioner for a recall petition. Specifically, the Chief Petitioner must acknowledge liability for improper circulation activities by a paid petition circulator. ORS 250.048(2)U).

ORS 250.048(7) provides a remedy for failure to register. Specifically, if a person receives compensation for collecting signatures on a recall petition, but was not registered at the time the signatures were obtained, the signatures cannot be included "for the purposes of determining whether the petition * * * contains the required number of signatures." In other words, if a paid circulator is not registered, the signatures collected by that circulator cannot be counted.

Oregon law also requires paid and volunteer recall petition circulators to comply with certain requirements in the signature collection process. OAR 165-014-0270(2) mandates that "circulators must certify that they witnessed the signing of the signature sheet by each individual whose signature appears on the sheet* * * ." As explained in the Recall Manual, a petition circulator must "personally witness each signature collected." Recall Manual at 10. This means that the circulator must "watch the person sign the petition." Id. The Recall Manual expressly provides "it is not sufficient to merely be present or in the same room or vicinity." Id. For each signature sheet, the circulator "shall certify" that he or she "[ w ]itnessed the signing of the signature sheet by each individual whose signature appears on the signature sheet." ORS 249.865( 4)(a). See also Circulator Training Manual at 9 (setting forth same requirements); Recall Manual at 10 (same). "A circulator's failure to comply with these requirements may result in the rejection of the petition signature sheets and a felony conviction for the circulator." Recall Manual at 1 O; Circulator Training Manual at 9.

Under Oregon law, recall petition sheets circulated by volunteers must be on different colored paper than recall petition sheets circulated by paid circulators. ORS 250.052(1 ). Recall petition sheets circulated by volunteers are on white paper, and petition sheets circulated by paid circulators are on colored paper. Recall Manual at 10. If a paid circulator uses a volunteer sheet, that signature sheet is rejected. See, e.g., Recall Manual at 8 ("Petition sheets that do not comply with the legal requirements and guidelines will be rejected").

Oregon law does not draw a distinction between a circulator who is paid solely to circulate a petition, and a circulator who circulates a petition in the course of performing his or her job duties. In other words, if a person is receiving compensation, and part of what that person is receiving compensation for is circulating a petition, then that person is a paid

Jeanne Atkins May 28, 2015 Page4

circulator. The campaign must register the circulator as a paid circulator, inform the Secretary of State that the campaign is using paid circulators, and report all contributions and expenditures relating to paid circulation. In addition, the circulator must meet the criteria set forth above.

The Evidence Establishes Multiple Violations of Oregon Law by the Gun Stores and the Chief Petitioner

Chief Petitioner Jason Thiesfeld, the Recall Committee, the Gun Stores and their employees repeatedly have violated the applicable laws and rules regarding circulation of a recall petition. The relevant facts are set forth in the Declarations of Christina Bailey ("Bailey Dec."), Russell Dregne ("Dregne Dec."), Charles McKenna ("McKenna Dec.") Lynda McMillan ("McMillan Dec."), Hannah Picknell ("Picknell Dec."), Daniel Woolf ("Woolf Dec.") and Makayla Yarbrough ("Yarbrough Dec."), all enclosed with this letter, and discussed below.

Baker's Shoe

The following was observed at Baker's Shoe Company, Unlimited, 2642 Roosevelt Boulevard, Eugene, Oregon.

• On May 6, 2015, at 3:30 p.m., everyone at Baker's Shoe was a customer or an employee. There were no volunteers on behalf of the recall present. Near the gun display, a white, 10-signature line Recall Petition sheet was resting on the counter. The Recall Petition sheet had two signatures on it. The Recall Petition sheet was left unattended, and anyone in or entering the store could have signed the petition sheet or altered the signatures or other information on the sheet, without supervision or being observed. Yarbrough Dec., iii! 2-5.

• On May 13, 2015, at approximately 1 :30 p.m., there were four or five people in the main section of the store (all customers or employees), and one more employee by the gun display area. There were no volunteers on behalf of the recall present. Near the gun display, a white, 10-signature line Recall Petition sheet was resting on a desk by the cash register. There were eight signatures on the Recall Petition sheet, and what appeared to be several additional petition sheets behind the front sheet. The Recall Petition sheet was left unattended, and anyone in or entering the store could have signed the petition sheet or altered the signatures or other information on the sheet, without supervision or being observed. McMillan Dec., iii\ 5-6.

• On May 16, 2015, at approximately 12:45 p.m., there was a sign in the front window of Baker's Shoe reading: "Sign RECALL PETITION Here." There were two people behind the counter in the gun section of the store. One was an employee (wearing a shirt identifying him as an employee), and the other was the owner of Baker's Shoe. There were no volunteers on behalf of the recall present. In response to an inquiry, the employee picked up a white, 10-signature Recall Petition sheet that had been sitting on the counter in front of him. The employee stated his reasons for supporting the Recall Petition. The same employee was asking questions of potential signers for the purpose of circulating the Recall Petition for signatures. McKenna Dec., iii! 2-4 and Ex. A.


• On May 16, 2015, at approximately 3:40 p.m., there were approximately half a dozen employees at Baker's Shoe. There were no volunteers on behalf of the recall present. One of the employees was showing guns to a customer and standing next to several sheets of paper, face down on the counter near him. Those sheets appeared to be Recall Petition sheets. That employee was asking questions of potential signers for the purpose of circulating the Recall Petition for signatures. Woolf Dec., ~~ 11-13.

GunRunner Arms

The following was observed at GunRunner Arms, 93244 Highway 99 South, Junction City, Oregon.

• On May 12, 2015, at approximately 2:00 p.m., there was a sign on Highway 99, in front of GunRunner Arms reading: "Sign RECALL PETITIONS Here." An identical sign also was near the street on the south side of the store, and a third identical sign was in the store window. There were two employees in the store. There were no volunteers on behalf of the recall present. A folding table was set up at the store's entrance. On top of the table was a white, 10-signature line Recall Petition sheet with seven signatures on it, all dated May 12, 2015. The Recall Petition sheet was unattended, and anyone entering the store could have signed the sheet or altered the signatures or other information on the sheet, without supervision or being observed. Yarbrough Dec., ~~ 11-13 and Ex. A.

• On May 15, 2015, there was a sign on Highway 99, in front of GunRunner Arms, reading: "Sign RECALL PETITIONS Here." There were two employees in the store. There were no volunteers on behalf of the recall present. There was a folding table set up at the store's entrance. On top of the table were several white, IO-signature line Recall Petition sheets. There were ten signatures on the first page of Recall Petition sheets, and four signatures on the second page; all the signatures on both pages were dated May 14, 2015. The Recall Petition sheet was unattended, and anyone entering the store could have signed or altered the Recall Petition sheet without supervision or being observed. A GunRunner Arms employee stated that there had not been a volunteer at GunRunner Arms attending to the Recall Petition sheets that day. That employee was asking questions of potential signers for the purpose of circulating the Recall Petition for signatures. Dregne Dec., ~~ 5-8 and Ex. A.

• On May 18, 2015, at approximately 5:30 p.m., there was a sign in the front window of GunRunner Arms, reading: "Sign RECALL PETITIONS Here." The only person in the store was Chief Petitioner Jason Thiesfeld. There was a folding table set up at the store's entrance. On that table was a white, 10-signature Recall Petition sheet. The sheet had only one signature on it, dated May 18, 2015. Mr. Thiesfeld left the store for several minutes, while he went to retrieve a handgun from his car. During that time, he left a customer alone in the store. The Recall Petition sheet was unattended, and anyone entering or in the store (especially when Mr. Thiesfeld left) could have signed the sheet or altered the signatures or information on the sheet, without supervision or being observed. Bailey Dec., ~~ 2-5 and Ex. A. See also Woolf Dec., ~ 14 (confirming that, on May 18, 2015, Mr. Thiesfeld was circulating the Recall Petition at GunRunner Arms).


• On May 19, 2015, at approximately 11:30 a.m., there was a sign near the entrance to GunRunner Arms, reading "Sign RECALL PETITIONS Here." There was a folding table set up at the store's entrance. On that table was a white, IO-signature Recall Petition sheet. One man was sitting behind the table, and Mr. Thiesfeld was standing by the table. The sheet had only one signature on it, dated May 18, 2015. Picknell Dec., ~~ 2-6 and Ex. A. It was the same signature (and sheet) that was on the table the prior day. Compare Picknell Dec., ~ 4 with Bailey Dec., ~ 4 (observing same signature and signature sheet sitting out on the table over the course of two different days). One of the men at the table was asking questions of potential signers for the purpose of circulating the Recall Petition for signatures. Picknell Dec., ~ 5. See also Woolf Dec., ~ 15 (confirming that on May 19, 2015, Mr. Thiesfeld was circulating the Recall Petition).

• Later that same day, at approximately 3:00 p.m. on May 19, 2015, a white, IO-signature line Recall Petition sheet was available for signature at GunRunner Arms, and was attended by a woman who may or may not have been a GunRunner Arms employee. Yarbourgh Dec.,~~ 14-15. There was only one signature on the signature sheet, dated May 18, 2015. It was the same signature that had been on the sheet the previous day. Compare Yarbourgh Dec., ~ 14 and Picknell Dec., ~ 4 with Bailey Dec., ~ 4. Mr. Thiesfeld was not one of the people present at GunRunner Arms at that time. Yarbrough Dec.,~ 15; Woolf Dec.,~ 16.

Oak Grove Guns

The following was observed at Oak Grove Guns, 45 Division A venue, Eugene, Oregon.

• On May 1, 2015, at approximately 4:30 p.m., there were four employees at Oak Grove Guns. There were no volunteers on behalf of the recall present. A white, 10-signature line Recall Petition sheet was resting unattended, on the glass case at the back of the store near the register. Anyone entering the store could have signed the Recall Petition sheet or altered the signature or information on the sheet, without supervision or being observed. The Recall Petition sheet had four signatures on it. Woolf Dec.,~~ 8-9.

• On May 7, 2015, at approximately 2:30 p.m., there were four employees at Oak Grove Guns. There were no volunteers on behalf of the recall present. A white, 10-signature line Recall Petition sheet was left unattended, on the glass case at the back of the store near the register. The petition had four signatures on it, dated May 4, 2015 through May 7, 2015. Yarbrough Dec.,~~ 9-10.

• On May 16, 2015, at approximately 2:15 p.m., there was a sign in the front window of Oak Grove Guns, which read: "Sign RECALL PETITIONS Here." All the people in the store were customers or employees. There were no volunteers on behalf of the recall present. One of the employees was speaking with a customer, and the employee was explaining his reasons for supporting the recall. The customer expressed interest in signing the Recall Petition. The employee confirmed the customer's residence in HD 14. The employee then provided the customer with a white, 10-signature line Recall Petition sheet, which the customer signed. Including the customer's signature, there were six


signatures on the Recall Petition sheet, dated from May 12, 2015 through May 16, 2015. A second customer then stated that he also lived in HD 14, and wanted to sign the petition. The second customer requested (and was provided by the employee) a new white, 10-signature line Recall Petition sheet. McKenna Dec.,~~ 5-6 and Ex. A.

• On May 16, 2015, at approximately 3:55 p.m., there were four employees at Oak Grove Guns. There were no volunteers on behalf of the recall present. A white, 10-signature line Recall Petition sheet was left, unattended, on the glass case at the back of the store near the register. Anyone entering the store could have signed the Recall Petition sheet or altered the signatures or information on the sheet, without supervision or being observed. The Recall Petition sheet had six signatures on it, dated May 12, 2015 through May 16, 2015. Woolf Dec.,~ 10.

S-MGunShop

The following was observed at S-M Gun Shop, 1375 River Road, Eugene, Oregon.

• On May 1, 2015, at approximately 3:00 p.m., there were three employees at S-M Gun Shop. There were no volunteers on behalf of the recall present. A white, 10-signature line Recall Petition sheet was left unattended, on the counter at the back of the store near the register. Anyone entering the store could have signed the Recall Petition sheet, or altered the signatures or information on the sheet, without supervision or being observed. The Recall Petition sheet had one signature on it, dated April 21, 2015. Woolf Dec.,~~ 2-5.

• On May 7, 2015, at approximately 1:30 p.m., there was a sign in front window of S-M Guns reading: "Sign RECALL PETITIONS Here." Everyone in the store was an employee or a customer; there were no volunteers on behalf of the recall present. On top of a gun case near the cash register was a stack of white, 10-signature line, Recall Petition sheets. The top sheet had eight signatures on it, dated from April 21, 2015 through May 7, 2015. One of the employees was asking questions of potential signers for the purpose of circulating the Recall Petition for signatures. Yarbrough Dec., ~~ 6-8 and Ex. A.

• On May 8, 2015, at approximately 11 :30 a.m., there was a sign in the front window of SM Guns reading "Sign RECALL PETITIONS Here." Everyone in the store was an employee or a customer; there were no volunteers on behalf of the recall present. On top of a gun case was a white, 10-signature line Recall Petition sheet. There were two signatures on the sheet. No one was standing near it. Anyone entering the store could have signed the Recall Petition sheet or altered the signatures or information on the sheet, without supervision or observation. Dregne Dec., ~~ 2-4 and Ex. A.

• On May 12, 2015, at approximately 1 :30 p.m., there was a sign in front of S-M Guns stating that the Recall Petition was available for signature inside. There were two employees in the store and one customer. No volunteers on behalf of the recall were present. In response to an inquiry regarding the Recall Petition, one of the employees


picked up a stack of Recall Petition sheets, and requested additional information from someone he perceived as a potential petition signer. That employee was asking questions of potential signers for the purpose of circulating the Recall Petition for signatures. McMillan Dec., iii! 2-4.

• On May 16, 2015, at approximately 2:30 p.m., there was a sign in the front window of SM Guns, which read: "Sign RECALL PETITIONS Here." There were two employees in the store. No volunteers on behalf of the recall were present. A white, 10-signature line Recall Petition sheet was on the counter. In response to an inquiry, one of the employee's explained why he supported the petition. That employee was asking questions of potential signers for the purpose of circulating the petition for signatures. McKenna Dec., iii! 7-8 and Ex A.

• On May 16, 2015, at approximately 4:15 p.m., there was a sign in the front window of SM Guns reading: "Sign RECALL PETITIONS Here." There were two people working in the store, and no volunteers on behalf of the recall present. Store employees were asking question of potential signers for the purpose of circulating the recall petition for signatures. Woolf Dec., iii! 6-7 and Ex. A.

Summary of Violations

The Recall Committee has not registered any paid signature circulators. The Recall Committee has not reported any contributions or expenditures (either monetary or in-kind) relating to petition circulation efforts.

Baker's Shoe

Baker's Shoe has signs outside its store encouraging the public to sign the Recall Petition. Inside the store, on at least two occasions, active Recall Petition sheets were left unattended. No person was supervising or observing signatures made on those sheets. It appears that no circulator could certify, in good faith, that he or she maintained control over the petition sheets or personally witnessed each signature collected.

The evidence also establishes that Baker's Shoe employees have been circulating the petition. On at least two occasions - May 6, 2015 and May 13, 2015 - Recall Petition sheets were available to customers, inside the store, by the gun display. No volunteers on behalf of the recall were present. Store employees were responsible for making the petition available to customers. The petition sheets had signatures on them, establishing that signatures were being collected by employees. Moreover, on at least two occasions on May 16, 2015, store employees actively were seeking to obtain signatures on the petition sheets. An employee explained to one individual the employee's reasons for supporting the petition, and then asked that individual whether he lived in HD 14. "Based on this conversation, I understood that if I had lived in House District 14, the employee would have provided the petition to me to sign." McKenna Dec., if 4. See also Woolf Dec, iii! 11-13 (a second individual having a similar interaction with a Baker's Shoe employee).

Jeanne Atkins May 28, 2015 ·

GunRunner Arms

GunRunner Arms has multiple signs outside its store encouraging the public to sign the Recall Petition. On at least three occasions - May 12, 2015, May 15, 2015, and May 18, 2015 -Recall Petition sheets were left unattended. In fact, on one occasion, the only person working at the store - Chief Petitioner Jason Thiesfeld- left the store (and petition sheets) unattended for several minutes while he retrieved a handgun from his car. No person was supervising or observing signatures made on those sheets. It appears that no circulator could say, in good faith, that he or she maintained control over the petition sheets or personally witnessed each signature collected.

Even more troubling is Chief Petitioner Thiesfeld's blatant failure to make any pretense of supervising signatures . As was set forth above, on May 18, 2015, Mr. Thiesfeld, who the only person working in the store at the time, left a customer alone in the store with a Recall Petition sheet, bearing one signature, in plain view. Bailey Dec., ~ 4. The next day, the same signature sheet still was sitting out, and Mr. Thiesfeld or another man was supervising signature collection on that sheet. Picknell Dec.,~ 4. Later that day, the same signature sheet was out, but the only person supervising signatures on that sheet was a woman. Yarbrough Dec.,~ 14. In other words, in addition to Mr. Thiesfeld leaving the sheet unattended, at least two different people supervised the collection of signatures on the same signature sheet. It appears that no circulator could certify, in good faith, that he or she observed signature collection on a signature sheet that was circulated by multiple people.

The evidence further establishes that GunRunner Arms employees, and its employee/ower (Chief Petitioner Thiesfeld) have been circulating the petition. On at least three occasions - May 12, 2015, May 15, 2015, and May 18, 2015 - Recall Petition sheets were available for signature on a white folding table at the store's entrance. No volunteers on behalf of the recall were present. In one instance, an employee confirmed that although the sheets were available for signature, there were no volunteers present collecting signatures. Store employees were responsible for making the petition available to customers. The petition sheets had signatures on them, establishing that signatures were being collected by employees. The employee asked an individual in the store whether he lived in HD 14. "I understood, based on this exchange, that ifl had lived in House District 14, [the employee] would have asked me to sign the petition." Drenge Dec.,~ 8.

Oak Grove Guns

Oak Grove Guns has a sign outside its store encouraging the public to sign the Recall Petition. On at least three occasions -May 1, 2015, May 7, 2015 and May 16, 2015 - Recall Petition sheets were left unattended. No person was supervising or observing signatures made on those sheets. It appears that no circulator could say, in good faith, that he or she maintained control over the petition sheets or personally witnessed each signature collected.

The evidence is also clear that Oak Grove Gun employees are circulating the petition. On multiple occasions-May 1, 2015, May 7, 2015 and May 16, 2015 -Recall Petition sheets were available to customers, inside the store. No volunteers from the Recall Committee were present.


Store employees were responsible for making the petition available to customers. The petition sheets had signatures on them, establishing that signatures were being collected by employees.

On May 16, 2015, an Oak Grove Gun employee was actively collecting signatures on a petition sheet, inside Oak Grove Guns. In the process of speaking with a customer, the employee promoted the Recall Petition, and obtained a signature from the customer on the Recall Petition. The employee also provided a second signature sheet to another customer. McKenna Dec.,~~ 5-6.

S-MGunShop

S-M Gun Shop has a sign outside its store encouraging the public to sign the Recall Petition. On at least three occasions-May 1, 2015, May 7, 2015 and May 18, 2015 - the Recall Petition sheets were left unattended. No person was supervising or observing signatures made on those sheets. It appears that no circulator could say, in good faith, that he or she maintained control over the petition sheet or personally witnessed each signature collected.

The evidence is also clear that S-M Gun Shop employees are circulating the petition. On multiple occasions Recall Petition sheets were available to customers, inside the store. No volunteers on behalf of the recall were present. Store employees were responsible for making the petition available to customers. The petition sheets had signatures on them, establishing that signatures were being collected by employees. Moreover, on multiple occasions - on May 12, 2015 and twice on May 16, 2015 - store employees actively were seeking to obtain signatures on the petition sheets.

Conclusion

Oregon elections law is unambiguous. If a person is receiving compensation while circulating a Recall Petition, that person must register with the Secretary of State and meet certain requirements (including passing a background check showing no prior convictions for forgery, fraud or identify theft). The evidence establishes that the Gun Stores and their employees appear to be engaged in paid signature circulation, in violation of Oregon elections law.

The evidence also establishes that the Chief Petitioner and the Recall Committee are not properly supervising circulation of the Recall Petition. The actions of Chief Petitioner Jason Thiesfeld, the Gun Stores and their employees, and the Recall Committee appear to constitute violations of Oregon elections law, Oregon criminal law, and ORI CO. Submission of the Recall Petition sheets discussed above, and petition sheets gathered under similar circumstances, may well constitute false certification under Oregon elections laws, and under Oregon's criminal code. The collective actions of Mr. Thiesfeld, the Recall Committee, the Gun Stores and their employees appear to be a racketeering, in violation of ORI CO.


Mr. Unger and Mr. Kilgore respectfully request that the Secretary of State take all necessary action to investigate the conduct discussed above, refer the matter to the Attorney General (as appropriate) and take appropriate action to stop and remedy the alleged violations of Oregon elections law, Oregon criminal law and Oregon civil law.

Very truly yours,

SCB:jjs

cc: client

stoll berne - oregonlive.com

Documents