Michael T

Michael T. Brown

P.O. Box 656

Largo, FL 33779

March 22, 2010

Oregon State Bar

Chris L. Mullmann

P.O. Box 231935

Tigard, OR 97281-1935

Re: Your file #-0902032 (Speck)

I am finally in receipt of the packet sent to you from Paul Speck. I read his reply with interest. There were a number of pages included I had never seen before.

Although I expected something unusual from Speck, I did not think he would put the ALS card put in play. That’s a cheap lawyer trick to avoid additional damage where his mental capacity to recall previous activities could be considered cloudy. How very convenient. Am I required to somehow feel sorry for him? Have him submit a certified diagnosis from a reliable doctor, not an injury/accident bodily harm doctor “lawyer’s doctor.” His medical condition (?) is no excuse for his actions – or lack thereof.

At the end of this reply, I have included a number of rules found within the OREGON RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Speck violated.

To Begin:

I contacted Speck in March 2009 for the express purpose of administering three depositions on three Central Oregon Truck Company, Inc. employees – Gerald Hill, Joseph Hudspeth and Patty Wilson. From my location, I researched Bend and called a considerable number of legal professionals seeking the right individual, someone who theoretically knew the difference between libel and slander. I didn’t want someone I had to teach, or worse, had to learn on the run. Speck was recommended by a local colleague of his.

There was absolutely no question concerning my intent. Speck states that I was required to be in attendance at the depositions. This is false. I was unable to find any reference in ORS 39 and 40 requiring this. Moreover, Speck stated I had to be scheduled with Gordon & Rees prior to his administering any depositions. This is also false.

On the issue of depositions, we had a meeting of the minds. He raised the issue of money. I asked him if $5,000.00 would be enough to get him started. He replied, ‘that would be enough to get through all the depositions.’ We had a done deal. He was made fully aware time was of the essence. He was to administer and I was going to pay for his time. He cashed the first of three certified checks on 3 April 2009.

1. There must be a Contract (provable evidence of an agreement); and

2. There must be an Obligation (some task that has to be performed or and act to be done); and

3. There must be a Consideration (an exchange of substance [HJR 192 (July 5, 1933)], to wit: dollars for labor or time of your life in exchange for goods.

Through all this, Speck did manage to tell me three truths I already knew. Everything else he told me was false.

1. Central Oregon Truck Company was sleazy;

2. Gerald Hill was an unreliable witness

3. The felony action should have been dismissed

I even provided Speck with the questions I wanted the COTC employees to answer. Had Speck fulfilled his obligation and duty to me to perform, the answers obtained would have resolved the following issues:

1. Gerald Hill lied on the police report, never witnessed anything, was never present, and perjured himself before the Deschutes County grand jury.

2. Upon submitting the deposition from Hill to the Court, Prosecutor Char would have had no option but to drop the felony action and cease his prosecutorial misconduct. There was never any probable cause and I was never interested in playing, “Let’s make a deal” with Char.

3. COTC would be forced to settle the libel and defamation action.

4. Every item on the DAC report and police report would have been proven to be false, making the entire report a fabrication, malicious and vindictive, clearly intending to inflicting economic harm.

It was also necessary to depose Hill in particular. Circuit Court Judge Brady, Prosecutor Char and COTC’s attorney Hawk had created an impenetrable stone wall to deny discovery. Brady ignored my motions for discovery to produce exculpatory evidence by both Char and COTC. Moreover, through additional research, I found out Brady had been a resident of Prineville (COTC HQ) and it became more than apparent she was not going to permit damaging evidence and testimony to be forthcoming, especially to a pro se (see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959)). So much for fair and impartial.

I specifically hired Speck to circumvent this wall. He was local and supposedly knew the ropes. Nothing gets done without a local presence - legal welfare. His inactions were so blatant I even filed a Motion to Compel just to try to get him to perform. How many clients have to do that?

Now, please refer to the “Affidavit of Criminal Report by Witness and Victim of Criminal Activity” included with Speck’s packet. I created this affidavit and sent it to Speck for the express purpose of having Hill sign it. If everything Hill conveyed to the police and DAC were true, Hill would have had no problem signing it. Instead, we all know that Hill lied. Speck’s refusal shows me he was intentionally protecting Char and COTC

A second telephone conversation with Speck occurred in early April 2009. He called me while I was out of the country. This conversation is conveniently missing from his packet. You already have my deposition I filed with the circuit court. This is the conversation where he assured me repeatedly he could just walk across the street and have the felony indictment dismissed. He assured me he had all kinds of horse power, political clout and his ability to influence the DA was gold. Just a simple walk across the street. He informed me he had been previously employed as an assistant district attorney for Deschutes County and knew the territory. I could find no evidence of this. Speck assured me of three things not included in his packet

1. A letter mailed to G&R stating Speck was now representing me (I even had to remind him to send the letter) on the civil action

2. He would command the production of exculpatory evidence and all discovery I was denied through the Circuit Court legal system

3. Gordon & Rees (COTC) would now take me seriously (apparently G&S doesn’t take pro se civil suits seriously)

Numbers 2 and 3 never came to pass. G&R continued to withhold exculpatory evidence. In fact, after his having contacted Hawk, Speck decided he needed to re-plead the civil action. He managed to really screw that up. He made false claims including the more blatant one where he stated I was an employee of the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA). Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a reason why the TSA only hires idiots at every position. Speck filed the re-pleaded action without conferring with me first. The gross errors could easily have been avoided. Speck’s effort was a complete waste of my money.

Let’s move to Speck’s involvement with Prosecutor Char.

Dated April 21, 2009, Speck informs me he received a letter from someone named Musco. The first thing Speck should have done was submit that letter to me for authentication. He failed to do that. I have yet to see this tidbit even after almost a year. I didn’t re-enter this country until after 27 April 2009.

Speck apparently talked this letter up with Char. Char must have already known it was coming. Upon suggestion of Char, dated 17 June 2009, Speck forwards another letter to me stating he made contact with a Mark Fedorko. Char claims Fedorko has worked for NCIS in the past and is now connected with TSA as an internal affairs investigator for over twenty years. First give away - TSA didn’t exist until after the 9/11/2001 events. I was suspicious and did a preliminary investigation and background check on Fedorko finding Char’s claim to be false. Fedorko was in fact working out of his own home in the Seattle area (a TSA investigator would have an office and his own phone) and was in fact employed by a former NCIS investigator doing private investigations while involved with real estate ventures. Fedorko’s employer had in fact been dismissed by the NCIS some years previously for fraternizing with a foreign national – a serious security breach. I called Speck on this telling him he had been set up by Char. This intel was included in my emails to Speck. Never has there ever been, nor will there ever be any government investigator willing to provide any opinion to any attorney, particularly during an ongoing investigation. I have learned through various channels that the FBI did contact Fedorko and rattle his cage pretty hard for impersonating a federal government officer. Speck is full of blunders.

As Fedorko was hired by Char to pose as a TSA investigator, I instructed Speck to command the production of all evidence in Char’s possession. By this time I already knew there was no summons or complaint, no injured party identified, nor was there an affidavit made under penalty of perjury stating I had done anything illegal to the injured party. This had previously been verified by Thomas Castle, Oregon assistant Attorney General. No effort by Speck was made on my behalf. Char was not going to inform Speck of this.

In an apparent effort by Char to smooth Speck’s ruffled feathers, Char informs Speck to inform me he (Char) could convict me based solely upon circumstantial evidence. Your office has been previously provided with a copy of the email replies and citations I provided Speck. This is where I informed Speck he didn’t know what he was talking about. Here again are the cites:

Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790, 72 S.Ct. 1002, 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952),

STATE of Oregon, v. BURROW, 653 P.2d 226,293 Or. 691;

Char, using Speck as an intermediary again, states that I must prove my whereabouts to Char beyond all reasonable doubt. Once again I informed Speck he didn’t know what he was talking about. The cite also on the same page is as follows:

Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975), Mullaney ... held that a State must prove every ingredient of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and that it (the state) may not shift the burden of proof to the defendant by presuming that ingredient upon proof of the other elements of the offense." Id. at 215, 97 S.Ct. at 2329.

If a simple minded pro se like myself can find this stuff out with just a modicum of research, what’s wrong with the trained Oregon legal professionals?

This is when I informed Speck his actions were completely intertwined with Chars. Moreover, I again informed Speck he was in fact working for me, not Char, and to get busy administering the depositions I hired him to do. Speck was more intent on protecting the interests of Char and COTC’s lawyer, Hawk. See my email dated 7/26/2009 beginning with: I just read an email from you…..

Speck failed to provide information to me and keep me updated. As stated previously, I am listing the pages he failed to send to me and or I never received:

1. Email dated 7/7/2009 beginning with : I have not received any discovery from G&R…

2. Email dated 7/2/2009 beginning with: Paul is out of the office…

3. Email dated 7/24/2009 beginning with: Eric Walker stopped by my office….

4. Email dated 7/2/2009 beginning with: Thanks very much Shelly…

5. Email dated 7/2/2009 beginning with: Please see the email below…

6. Email dated 8/7/2009 beginning with: We received a copy of the proposed Order…

Speck’s incompetence and failure to perform has cost me a substantial amount of time and money. Had he performed as contracted, two actions would have concluded in my favor in the Circuit Court. Rather, Speck’s incompetence forced me to continue to spend additional and unnecessary funds by:

1. File a complaint in district court (Tampa)

2. An additional $100,000.00 in my time and money in legal expenses. The total now exceeds $225,000.00.

3. I lost an additional year’s income approximation $55,000.00

4. I had to file a complaint with the state of Oregon (consumer protection) against COTC for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act

5. I had to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (consumer protection) against COTC for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act

6. I had to file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor (fraudulent employment practices) against COTC for violating labor laws

7. I had to file a complaint with the U.S. Department of transportation (fraudulent interstate transactions) against COTC for violations of transportation law.

When totaling all this up, Speck has now cost me:

1. $1.6 million in compensatory damages I had coming from COTC

2. The probability of $4.5 million in punitive damages, also from COTC

3. At least $55,000.00 in lost wages and income

4. The continued loss of reputation

5. Great emotional distress

6. I have been blackballed from the transportation industry

Speck stole from me and intentionally failed to perform. In any other venue, this would be known as grand theft. I placed my funds and trust in Speck and he charted me. Speck’s motive was to bleed me dry of my available funds without accomplishing anything. He almost succeeded. I had another check in the amount of $2,300.00 ready to go when I cut him off for non performance. His motives were strictly to produce income.

18 U.S.C. § 1346 : US Code - Section 1346: Definition of "scheme or artifice to defraud"

For the purposes of this chapter, the term "scheme or artifice to defraud" includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.

Federal Honest Services Fraud Law 18 U.S.C. Section 1346

White collar crimes

The federal mail fraud statute, which became law following the Civil War, currently provides "whoever, having devised or intending to devise, any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretense, representations or promises" shall be fined, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. The typical jury charge told jurors that it encompassed "any conduct which fails to match the reflection of moral uprightness, fundamental honesty, fair play and right dealing in the general and business life of members of the community."

In 1987, the Supreme Court struck down the honest services fraud theory in McNally v. United States, holding that the mail fraud statute protects property rights, not the intangible right to honest services. In the wake of McNally, Congress passed 18 U.S.C. Section 1346, which defined a scheme or artifice to defraud as including "a scheme or artifice to defraud another of the intangible right of honest services."

In the years following Congress’ enactment of Section 1346, the courts began a struggle to define what the intangible right to honest services means. While all the circuits could agree that Section 1346 should not be interpreted to transform every breach of a workplace rule or ethics violation into a federal crime, the courts could not agree on what limiting principle would allow them to achieve an appropriate result consistent with the constraints of federalism. Among the issues courts have wrestled with are whether an HSF violation also requires violation of a state criminal law, a state civil statute, or whether breach of a state or "federal" common law duty will suffice.

The Seventh Circuit found that Black owed a fiduciary duty of loyalty and candor to Hollinger, and that he and others misused their positions for personal gain. As a result, Hollinger was deprived of its right to their honest services. The question presented in the petition for certiorari in Black is whether HSF requires economic or other property harm to a private party to whom the duty of honest services was owed. The Seventh Circuit requires only a breach of fiduciary duty for personal gain at the expense of the party to whom the duty is owed and not foreseeable harm.

Sounds like the Seventh Circuit had Speck in mind.

Speck failed to include in his packet the motion and order he filed with the Circuit Court to withdraw. He left me high and dry and still owed me a duty. Malfeasance jumps right off the page. In his Motion and Order to withdraw, Speck states in his accompanying affidavit that I wouldn’t follow his advice. In other words, he wasn’t going to administer the depositions. This statement is outrageous. He simply wouldn’t perform as hired. He had a completely different agenda from mine. My objectives were clearly communicated to Speck on a constant basis. When I hand an attorney a check and the list of questions to propound, it can’t get any more specific than that.

Speck really screwed me over and now he is claiming ALS. Now that’s your legal system in action.

OREGON RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT APPICABLE TO THIS COMPLAINT AND SPECK

CLIENT-LAWYER RELATIONSHIP

RULE 1.1 COMPETENCE

A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

RULE 1.2 SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION AND ALLOCATION OF AUTHORITY BETWEEN CLIENT AND LAWYER

(a) Subject to paragraphs (b) and (c), a lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and, as required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer may take such action on behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. A lawyer shall abide by a client's decision whether to settle a matter. In a criminal case, the lawyer shall abide by the client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial and whether the client will testify.

RULE 1.3 DILIGENCE

A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer.

RULE 1.4 COMMUNICATION

(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information

RULE 1.5 FEES

(a) A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee or a clearly excessive amount for expenses.

(b) A fee is clearly excessive when, after a review of the facts, a lawyer of ordinary prudence would be left with a definite and firm conviction that the fee is in excess of a reasonable fee. Factors to be considered as guides in determining the reasonableness of a fee include the following:

(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly;

RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF

INFORMATION

(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).

RULE 1.16 DECLINING OR TERMINATING

REPRESENTATION

(a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:

(b) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if:

(1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client;

(c) A lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation. When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.

(d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers, personal property and money of the client to the extent permitted by other law.

RULE 3.8 SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A

PROSECUTOR

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause; and

(b) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal.

MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROFESSION

RULE 8.3 REPORTING PROFESSIONAL

MISCONDUCT

(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the Oregon State Bar Client Assistance Office.

(b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.

RULE 8.4 MISCONDUCT

(a) It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(3) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law;

Speck’s background:

Part Two
..."01/06/1994",722482,"Speck, Paul J." http://www.oregonshyster.com/shyster/parttwo.

Part three
..."10/23/1996",722482,"Speck, Paul J" http://www.oregonshyster.com/shyster/partthree.htm

1997 Citizen complaints against Oregon Attorneys 1997
722482,"Speck, Paul J","OSB""02/07/1997",
http://www.oregonshyster.com/shyster/c1997.htm

1998 Citizen Complaints Against Oregon Attorneys 1999
“03/30/1998",722482,"Speck, Paul J" http://www.oregonshyster.com/shyster/c1998.

Citizen Complaints against Oregon Lawyers and dispositions by OSB
10/07/2009 Brown, Michael T. Speck, Paul J 0 09-02033
http://www.oregonshyster.com/shyster/2009.htm

I submit this reply respectfully being fully cognizant of the fact you have a serious problem in Oregon. Perhaps this case is exactly why the vast majority of citizens (+86%) in this country no longer believe in the legal system, civil rights, or the government. Maybe this is exactly why the legal profession is held in such low esteem.

Michael T. Brown