Old boys of Eugene circling wagons against Kroger (Jack Bog's Blog)

It's hard to concentrate on much today beyond the forecast for radioactive rain, but there's quite a brouhaha going on down the valley in Eugene. Dave Frohnmayer, who really ought to be retired by now, continues to collect at least two paychecks at the same time, lately becoming a defender of state employees accused of wrongdoing. We wrote on Tuesday about his 30-page letter in one of those cases, involving a good old boy's boy.

Now another Eugene Republican, Jack Roberts, has jumped up to amplify Frohnmayer's accusations of prosecutorial misconduct, in an op-ed piece in the O. And today the state's attorney general (and all-around press release champ) rose to defend himself, and take a few swipes back at Roberts, in an op-ed column of his own.

To think that it's all over the governor's girlfriend and her money. I feel like I'm watching a grange hall production of The Iliad.

Anyway, to keep up on all the seediness coming out of state government in Eugene, you have to bookmark this guy, who's always got an interesting tidbit or two.

Comments (10)

Point, Kroger.

Posted by AKevin | March 12, 2011 3:48 PM

Should mention that I'm biased as a former student of his. I even adopted his pronunciation of the word "co-air-zhun". I used to pronounce the word coercion the same way everybody else does. His glasses are so darned disarming.

Posted by AKevin | March 12, 2011 3:51 PM

So Shelli Honeywell, the DoE employee badgered by Riddell, continues to be primarily as a single mother with an ill mother. It was deep into the "O" article that it mentioned her attorney was present and she herself is a law school grad. Hardly a lack of representation. And her attorney didn't say anything when Riddell was badgering her?

No one in this whole Sylvia thing looks good or maybe because it's just full of shady people to begin with.

Posted by Andrew | March 12, 2011 7:51 PM

Riddell wasn't "badgering" Honeywell, he was lying to her about the evidence he had and threatening her with criminal prosecution if she didn't implicate her superior. What was her attorney, who didn't know Riddell was lying, supposed to do about that?

What's revealing is that, even after Holliwell said what Riddell wanted her to say, the DOJ still didn't have enough evidence to make their case. Doesn't that say something about their own confidence in the statement they secured by these methods?

Posted by Jack Roberts | March 12, 2011 8:20 PM

Kroger is a real piece of work. Someone should do a story about the turf war between him and Brad Avakian. Here is a veterans group he is banging against.

http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-26689-oregon_war_veterans_association_blasts_kroger.html

Posted by Anthony | March 13, 2011 10:27 AM

"What was her attorney, who didn't know Riddell was lying, supposed to do about that?"
Most attorneys object, instruct their client not to answer, and cite the good ol 5th amendment prohibition against self incrimination, telling the investigator to go pound sand.

Posted by genop | March 13, 2011 2:46 PM

I assume from your answer, genop, that you are not a lawyer.

Posted by Jack Roberts | March 13, 2011 5:13 PM

My legal bona fides for my last opinion about the typical lawyer's response in protecting their client from self incrimination is gleaned from years of watching those who play them on t.v.. As exemplified by the prosecutor wringing their hands in frustration while exclaiming: "Da perp lawyered up"

Posted by genop | March 14, 2011 11:47 AM

In addition to my T.V. law bona fides, the Wizard of Google Search instructs: "The privilege against self incrimination extends not only to criminal cases, but also to any trial, investigation, inquiry, or other proceeding in which a witness may be compelled to testify as to facts that could conceivably result in the filing of criminal charges." Ex parte Muncy, 163 S.W. 29 (Tex. 1913); McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924)

Posted by genop | March 14, 2011 12:51 PM

Well, okay, now that I know you have valid credentials, I'll try to make a serious response.

The question had already been asked and answered. Riddell turned off the tape recorder, falsely told Honeywell that he had enough evidence to charge her with a crime unless she gave him evidence to use against her superior, Mark Long.

Taking the Fifth Amendment at that point was too late. Nor did her attorney have grounds to object to a question he hadn't objected to the first time he asked it (in depositions, objections are generally waived anyway except to the form of the question, which could confuse or mislead the deponent).

The dilemma Honeywell faced was not caused by poor representation by her lawyer, but by Riddell's apparent willingness to lie about the testimony of other witnesses and the evidence he had gathered to threaten her with criminal prosecution if she didn't tell him what he wanted to hear.

And the fact that Honeywell is also a lawyer raised the stakes, since a criminal conviction could cost her her license to practice law.

Posted by Jack Roberts | March 14, 2011 2:37 PM

Search this site

About

Clippings

Archives

Links

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Saturday, March 12, 2011

Old boys of Eugene circling wagons against Kroger

Comments (10)

Sponsors

In Vino Veritas

The Occasional Book

Road Work