Affidavit of facts
showing how the defendants violated ORS 166.175 - 16.735
RACKETEERING
William F. McIver
Plaintiff
v.
Ulys Stapleton, Clyde Hammersly,
Joshua Marquis, Bernice Barnett,
Sharon Gribble Cunningham, James Huegli,
Betty Baggs Hutton, Bill McGowan,
Robert Huckleberry, Hillari Palatnik,
Maureen O'Boyle, Muriel Ries,
Bradley Avakian, Michael Menzies,
Nancy Hawkins, William Kennemer,
Stan Mazur-Hart, Rives Kistler
and unnamed Does
Defendants
Overview
I, William F. McIver II, PhD., swear:
I am a psychologist who testified in various states as
an expert witness in cases of alleged sex abuse. I said prosecutors,
including Lincoln County's, sometimes took advantage of national hysteria
about the subject to prosecute bogus charges.1
And some judges went along for political reasons. I criticized
psychologists, caseworkers, and prosecutors about the biased way they
interviewed children in these cases. I claimed psychologists and
psychiatrists hired by prosecutors & parole boards often wrote phony
personality evaluations. And sex offender treatment programs they
touted didn't work.2
2.
I consulted in school,3
day care center and divorce cases, and audio or videotaped all interviews
with children start to finish. Parents, counselors, plaintiffs, and
prosecutors, sometimes watched through a one-way mirror. Children
frequently denied saying things caseworkers and prosecutors claimed they
said in unrecorded interviews.4
3.
The Newport News Times published an article of mine in
1984. I said in cases of alleged sex abuse the Lincoln County DA's
office and Children's Services Division showed the same zealously selective
inattention to truth as Massachusetts witch hunters in 1692.5
As a direct result of my views, the defendants made and
circulated false civil and criminal charges against me to ruin my reputation
and put me out of business. They claimed:
A) I had sex with a patient,
Betty Baggs (Hutton),6 who filed a civil
malpractice case, &
B) I had a secretary alter Baggs'
time in an appointment book they said would have been evidence in a
civil trial.7 Lincoln Co.
prosecutors filed a criminal case.
5.
I settled the civil case out of court on my attorney's
advice.8,9 In the
criminal case I was found guilty of tampering with a witness and evidence
and sent to Oregon State Penitentiary.10
Judge Robert Huckleberry, in a post conviction appeal, saw physical evidence
the time slot wasn't altered.11 He
heard experts (including the state's) testify they could find no sign of
alteration. Yet, he (& co-author Bernice Barnett) lied in a
Memorandum of Opinion about the expert's testimony and the physical
evidence they examined to uphold the tampering conviction,
6.
The defendants associated as an enterprise-in-fact to violate ORS
166.175 - 166.735. The shared purpose of this enterprise was to
ruin my reputation and stop me from working as a clinical psychologist and
expert witness.
7.
The defendants committed multiple acts constituting a pattern of
racketeering activity starting before 5/85 through 3/25/93,12
and beyond. They allow their violations to go uncorrected. Their
actions continue to injure me, since as a 71 year old convicted felon I
can't get a license to earn a living practicing my profession. Each
defendant did things necessary or helpful to the enterprise.
8.
The core issues of this case are the truth or falsity of:
A) The claim Baggs - Hutton and I
had sexual contact of any sort; &
B ) The claim I tampered with
evidence and a witness by having an ex-secretary erase a name written at
5: PM in a 12/16/83 appointment book page and rewrite it at 1: PM.
9.
Evidence lawyer Jim Huegli & Betty
Baggs Hutton fabricated her malpractice complaint:
1) Her conflicting claims in civil &
criminal trials, depositions, an affidavit, & the TV tabloid, A Current
Affair.
2) Her false sworn statements in
depositions & an affidavit, & perjury in civil & criminal trials.
3) Lawyer Jim Huegli's conversion of
stolen patient's records to enhance the case, his subornation of perjury &
false testimony.
10.
Background
In May 1985, Jim Huegli (then with Schwabe, Williamson,
and Wyatt) filed a sex mal practice claim against me.13
He didn't even try to verify his client's allegations. He boasted to
The Oregonian he had "proof positive" his claim was true. He sent
copies of the complaint to lawyers and prosecutors in cases where I was to
testify. He had his client complain to the Psychology Licensing board.
Then he discovered she'd had sex with Jesus 3 times while He was on the
cross.14 This, and other readily
available facts Huegli hadn't uncovered, led him to agree to sign papers to
drop his case.
11.
Before signing, however, he contacted my secretary,
Sharon Gribble,15 and ex-secretary Mary
Dobson. Gribble gave him Betty Hutton's name as a dissatisfied former
patient who once called the office to dispute a bill. He solicited Hutton to
file a bogus sex malpractice action against me.16,
17, 18
12.
Hutton swore falsely about circumstances under which she retained Huegli's
services: In a 4/15/86 deposition she testified she retained him when
he went to her home a week after he first called her. Then, in a
7/23/86 deposition, she claimed she retained him immediately after he called
and introduced himself. He objected to all questions about this
contact:
13.
Hutton
vs. McIver, 85-1318 (4/15/86)19
Q. (By Ms. Martyn) During the first time
you had these discussions with Mr. Huegli by phone, did you retain him
as an attorney?
A. No.
Q. Do you recall when you retained him
as your attorney?
A. I'm not sure. I talked to
him in person first.
Q. So you had - - Did you have more than
one phone discussion before you talked to him in person?
A. No.
Q. So you had one phone conversation and
then you talked to him in person. Where did you meet him in
person?
Q. Okay. And at that meeting, did you
retain him as your attorney?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you retain him as your
attorney?
A. I just asked him to represent me.
Q. Did you sign any kind of retainer
agreement?
A. Yes.
Q. ----- that day?
A. Yes.
14.
Then, in a 7/23/86 deposition, Hutton changed her
testimony to cover the sequence of events surrounding Huegli's trip to her
home in Waldport to solicit her to sue:
Hutton vs. McIver, 85-1318
(7/23/86)20
Q. ... During the last continuation
deposition, we were discussing your first contact with Mr. Huegli.
And you testified that Mr. Huegli had given you a phone call. And,
at that time, you were unsure of what time of the year or month you
received a phone call from Mr. Huegli. Do you have any better
recollection at this point in time when you received a phone call from
Mr. Huegli?
A. It was either at the end of August
or the first of September of '83.
Q. Okay. Would that be of'85?
A. Okay. '85.
Q. 1985. Okay.
A. Sorry.
Q. And he asked you if you'd been a
patient of Dr. McIver; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What else was discussed during that
phone conversation?
A. He asked me if - if I had been a
patient of Dr. McIver. And if I would be willing to answer any
questions regarding Dr. McIver for another client of his,
Q. Okay. And what was your response?
A. A question. I asked him if
he will represent me.
{ lawyer discussion}
Q. Is it your testimony now that on that
first conversation with Mr. Huegli, your second response to him was then
would he represent you?
A. Yes.
15.
Hutton's change in testimony is belied by Dr. Suzanne
M. Paulsen, to whom Dr. Robbins referred her after Huegli wrote "It is very
important that this nice lady receive a psychiatric referral."21
In a 3/26/86 deposition taken for Hutton vs. McIver. Dr. Paulsen testified
Hutton told her: "... some lawyer called her and wanted her to participate
in a suit against Dr. McIver for improper sexual activities."22
16.
Hutton changed her testimony to cover the fact Huegli
called to solicit her to sue. He collaborated in this falsely sworn
declaration. Even though, during the 4/15/86 deposition, he claimed
that, at this time, she was a "potential witness."23
Thus, admitting he didn't represent her.
17.
Had he said she became a client the instant after his greeting, Ms. Martyn
wouldn't have requested a court order to let her ask about his first
contact.
18.
Huegli called Hutton after she married Robert Hutton.
The couple had critical financial and marital problems.24
She filed for bankruptcy on 3/22/84, two months after they married.25
He drank heavily. She told her physician, Jerry Robbins, MD., he
physically abused her. She abused prescription drugs,26
and was later hospitalized for drug abuse. She had attempted suicide.27
19.
A computer printout of her 5/16/83 psychological test
results shows Betty Hutton marked the following items "True":28
-
There is something wrong with my mind.
-
Someone has been trying to influence my mind.
-
I hear strange things when I am alone.
-
Sometimes I feel as if I must injure either myself or someone else.
-
Most of the time I wish I were dead.
-
I don't seem to care what happens to me.
-
Much of the time I feel I have done something wrong or evil
-
No one cares much what happens to you.
-
At times I think I am no good at all.
-
I cannot do anything well.
-
At times I feel like picking a fist fight with someone.
20.
Betty Hutton admitted that, during the time she claimed
we were having sexual relations, she was so disturbed Dr. Robbins and I
wanted her to commit herself. On July 1, 1983, she told Dr. Robbins'
physician assistant she had taken "a fistful of Valium," bought a gun
& planned to shoot herself & her dog.29
She was in a "vegetative" state, "huddled in the corner of the
room, speech very slow, that sort of thing."30
Dr. Robbins thought she was "hoarding" and "abusing" drugs.31
His nurse called me over. I found her hunched on the floor in tears &
lifted her to her feet. She didn't want to commit herself and we
allowed her to go home.32, 33
21.
Her claims in her initial complaint, trials, affidavits, and depositions,
are replete with contradictions:
22.
- Before Huegli called
her, Hutton told Arlen Quan, M.D. she hadn't had sexual relations with me.34
But after Huegli's call she sued alleging she had sex with me in my office.35
23.
- She said we had sex
"two or three occasions, I guess."36
Then, she changed it to twice.37 (In a
1996 deposition she said she didn't remember if it was more than once.)38
24.
- But after she filed
the suit, she told Dr. Robbins we had intercourse "several times," which
left him with implication it was "...more than three, three or more" times.39
She told psychology licensing board members she had sex with me at least
twice in 1983.40
- She said she had
sexual relations with me "three or four months" after she started seeing me
in 5/4/83. Sometime in July or August 1983.41
However, this was after she started going with Robert Hutton, and attended
his 7/11/83 birthday party. A friend said during this time she and
Robert were together "... almost every free moment."42
25.
- Betty Hutton claimed
she didn't meet Robert until 8/16/83.43
But on 8/1/83 she told Dr. Robbins "... she was seeing a man and that their
relationship had developed to the extent that it was becoming a sexual
relationship and she wanted some protection against becoming pregnant."44
26.
- Dr. Robbins testified
the man wasn't me. "The implication of that was that this new
relationship was the relationship that turned out to be her present
marriage."45 She asked for birth
control.46 He gave her Norinyl 1/50 on
8/1/83.47
27.
- She said Robert
didn't stay overnight at her home before they were married.48
But he'd moved out of Eagles Nest apartment # 8 on 12/1/83 and left her
telephone number & address.49 When
arrested on 12/5/83, he listed Betty Baggs' home ( Box 8865, Highway 101) as
his and said he'd been living with her three days.50
28.
- She professed she
wasn't on birth control pills the end of August 1983,51
although she'd started on 8/1/83.
29.
- In a 4/15/86
deposition she said we had not had sex in my office.52
In her civil complaint she said we had sex in the office.53
But in the civil trial she said it was in her home, not the office.
30.
- She told Dr. Robbins
we had sex in her home and the office.54
In a 10/23/85 deposition she said it wasn't in the office it was in her
home.55 She said, although I asked her
to, she didn't perform oral sex in my office.56
But on A Current Affair, she indicated she did perform oral
sex in my office. In the criminal trial she said we had sex two times,
both at her home, not the office.57
And, there was no sex in the office, just "sexual misconduct."58,
59 Earlier, in the same trial she testified
we had intercourse in the office and her home.60
31.
- On 3/14/96 Hutton
again stated we had intercourse at her house and the office.61
Then she claimed she never said there was intercourse in the office.62
When subsequently asked if she alleged there was intercourse in the office
she said she didn't remember.63 This
turned into: "The oral sex was in your office."64
Asked again if there was office intercourse, she said, "I don't think so."65
32.
- She didn't remember
if there was intercourse a third time in her home or anywhere else.66
Or how often it allegedly took place in the office,67
but said it took place at her house "once or twice, I'm not sure."68
She said she thought the first time was in her home during the Summer of
1983, but "I'm not sure." It could have been June, but "I'm
not positive."69
33.
- She said she didn't
remember if the alleged second time occurred Summer or Fall 1983.70
She didn't remember the time of year the alleged office intercourse
occurred, or the month, or whether it was winter.71
Or if it was more than once.72 Or if
it was morning or afternoon.73
34.
- Although she
previously testified the sexual relationship took place sometime in July or
August 1983,74 in 1996 she "wasn't sure."
She didn't remember if the office sex happened on her 3rd visit, May 16,
1983.75 Or if it was on the 4th visit,
May 20, 1983.76
- She didn't know the
day, month, or season when the first intercourse at her home allegedly
occurred.77
35.
Huegli had Hutton complain to the Oregon Board of
Psychologists to make his case look better. But, in an affidavit he
later wrote for her, he said: "Sometime between the civil and criminal
trial described above, I filed a complaint against McIver with the Oregon
Board of Psychology Examiners ("OBPE") for his sexual misconduct toward me."78
36.
He knew this wasn't true. He'd filed the
complaint with the Board on 9/5/85.79
A day before he filed Hutton's civil complaint in Lincoln County on
9/6/85. The civil trial (Hutton vs. McIver) was in 9/86.
The criminal trial (State vs. McIver) was in 8/88.80
37.
Some psychology board members (including Courtney
Goodmonson & Nancy Hawkins) immediately announced they were going to revoke
my license no matter what the trial outcome. The Board assigned
William Kennemer & Nancy Hawkins to investigate.81,
82
38.
On 8/1/85 Chair, Mazur-Hart, sent a letter inviting me to contact them.
But they wouldn't answer my calls or letters. So on 9/20/85 I told
them my insurance company lawyers, Ron Stephenson & Chrys Martin, asked that
all communication about the cases be through them.
39.
Kennemer & Hawkins also wouldn't communicate with me
through my attorneys or give them any information. They wouldn't allow
me to give my side of the case, or tell us who witnesses were to allow me to
confront them. On 12/16/85 the attorneys told them substantial
information established the Ward - Hutton complaints were without merit.
They asked Kennemer & Hawkins to hold off issuing a report until after the
civil trials, when they could make this information available.
Kennemer & Hawkins refused. They recommended license revocation before
4/15/86,83 five months before trial, without
fully investigating. Ostensibly, because of the unadjudicated,
unsubstantiated, charges alone. In their rush to revoke, they denied
due process and refused to avail themselves of the following evidence:
40.
- Dr. Quan, 5/17/84: Hutton said she had
never had intercourse with me. [E. 49 D)
- Jerry Robbins M.D.'s notes on Hutton. [E.
115, A- C)
- Hutton's Division of Workmen's
Compensation file.
- Betty Hutton's letters to her deceased
husband and me. [E. 135 - 156 ]
- Betty Hutton's 10/23/85,4/15/86,7/26/86
depositions.
- Robert Hutton's deposition.
- Ron Robert's 2/20/86 affidavit about Mrs.
Hutton and her new husband's possible motivation for suing. [E. 194 C ]
- Ward's medical file, including North
Lincoln Hospital records.
- Documentation of Ward's contacts with
porno distributors before her 1st appointment with me. (She had
claimed I introduced her to pornographic paraphernalia); [E. 119 CD]
- Documentation of Ward's sexual liaison,
before she met me, with a customer of the store where she clerked, (She had
claimed her alleged contact with me was her 1 8t such in 20 years. )
41.
Kennemer & Hawkins refused to examine documents which would have shown:
- Stark contradictions in Hutton's trial,
deposition, and affidavit testimony.
- Hutton changed her testimony to obscure
the fact Huegli solicited her to sue;
- Huegli, to enhance his suit, committed
theft, violating ORS 164.043 Theft in the 3rd degree; &
ORS 164.095 Theft by receiving.
42.
Kennemer & Hawkins made their notes of contacts in these cases unavailable.
43.
Evidence
prosecutors fabricated tampering charges:
1) The readily visible three -
dimensional physical reality of the appointment book page.
2) Photomicrographs and scientific
testimony that incontrovertibly prove it wasn't altered.84
44.
The primary evidence is a 1" x 2" time slot for 5: PM
on a 12/16/83 page in an Ideal appointment book.85
Prosecutors claimed I had Mary Dobson erase, from this page, the name "Betty
Baggs" written at 5: PM, and rewrite it at 1: PM. They copied the
original during the 9/86 Hutton vs. McIver trial. Stapleton,
Hammersly, &, later, Barnett, saw the original. Which means they could
only have seen signs it had not been tampered with. In
Oregon vs. McIver they displayed a copy, though it couldn't conceivably
show signs of tampering not on the original page.
45.
Because it's physically impossible to see, in the 5: PM
time slot of the original, any signs of tampering which defense & state
experts in a 1/17/92 post conviction trial86
testified they couldn't detect. And which independent scientists at
McCrone Associates, Inc., a laboratory specializing in ultramicroanalysis,
microscopy, and solid state chemistry, cannot detect with state of the art
techniques. They concluded: "...we could find no evidence whatsoever
that a name had been written in the 5:00 P.M. slot and subsequently erased
or otherwise altered. Because of the physical characteristics of the
paper, had an alteration taken place, it would have been quite apparent"87
46.
Evidence of absence isn't absence of evidence.
It's evidence. The lack of alteration is readily confirmed and
verifiably certain.88 It's tangible,
rock solid, proof clearly visible to the naked eye. The slot's just a
three-dimensional slice of untouched compressed paper fibers with no
indentation, smudge, smirch, or even ultramicroscopic trace, of graphite.
47.
During the Hutton vs. McIver trial, after discussing patient privilege,
Judge McMullen took the appointment book into his office to examine the
12/16/83 page. He later said he examined three entries and found no
signs of erasure. However, in a 1/13/92 affidavit for McIver v.
Oregon. he swore:
48.
"I did not
state, either on or off the record, that I had examined Dr. McIver's
appointment book on the day that Mrs. Mary Dobson testified about and
found there was no erasure. Not only do I not recall doing so but
it would also be inconsistent with what I believed to be true. In
my estimation there had been an instruction or request by Dr. McIver to
the appointment secretary to make a change. In addition, on my
estimation, the requested change had been made. The claims to the
contrary conflict with my actual belief. I know that I would not
say anything like that because it would not be proper for me as the
trial judge to make comments about the truth or falsity of evidence in
open court."89
49.
Prosecutor Richard Hammersly & Detective Mike Menzies backed him up with
affidavits.
50.
Judge McMullen took the book into his office. The only reason to do
this was to examine it. He equivocated when he declared he "... did
not state, either on or off the record, that I had examined Dr. McIver's
appointment book on the day that Mrs. Mary Dobson testified about and found
there was no erasure."
51.
However, nine months earlier, 3/26/92, Bernice Barnett
stated: "I do believe that Judge McMullen obtained from Dr. McIver the
appointment book which was in question, looked at it in camera, and supplied
to the witnesses for use in the Bagley/Mrs. Hutton (sic) trial
a photocopy in which names of other patients had been taken out."90
Independent observers, including one attorney, noted the event.91
52.
Judge McMullen lied when he swore: "In my estimation there had been an
instruction or request by Dr. McIver to the appointment secretary to make a
change. In addition, on my estimation, the requested change had been
made. The claims to the contrary conflict with my actual belief."
It was physically impossible for him to see
anything other than the conclusive absence of the alleged erasure &
rewriting. So his "actual belief' could only have conformed with reality.
53.
I hired Sharon Gribble as full time receptionist /
secretary on 9/7/84. Shortly after this, she (unknown to me) started
bilking her insurance company out of money by falsely listing her husband
and son as my patients.92 She
deposited payments in her personal account at Yaquina Bay Bank. On at
least one occasion, she paid a part time employee $30 in cash, but made out
in her name, then endorsed, a business check for $350, which she deposited
in her account.
54.
District Attorney Stapleton & Asst. D.A. Hammersly93
gave Gribble and ex-secretary Dobson immunity from charges of theft and
perjury. These prosecutors used their perjured testimony that I had
Dobson alter the appointment time to fabricate criminal charges against me.
Huegli knowingly used this testimony and files Gribble stole to prejudice
jurors in his civil case:
55.
Gribble stole documents from patient's confidential
files and gave them to Huegli, who produced them in court in Hutton vs.
Mclver.94 She gave Hammersly,
Stapleton, detective Menzies, postal inspector Tom Shipley, Assistant A.G.
Walt Barrie, & Jeanine McLaughlin (AG's office) confidential information
about patients,95 and documents and copies
of documents she stole from the office. At no time in this process was
there any judicial supervision.
56.
Moments before walking off the job on 8/13/85 Gribble
used my signature stamp to write herself an unauthorized check for $200.
She also used it to defraud her insurance company by submitting bogus bills
for her husband and son's nonexistent treatment. She repeatedly
committed perjury during the Hutton vs. McIver and State vs. McIver trials
when she swore: 1) I had her falsify patient's records; 2) I recouped
monetary gifts and loans to patients by passing the amount on to their
insurance companies; 3) I had her pad bills to insurance companies; 4) I had
her (and Mary Dobson) fake patient's test answers; 5) her husband and son
were my patients; 6) their insurance bills were legitimate; 7) she gave me
cash when they came in for their appointments; 8) I gave her $200 for a
vacation when she walked off the job.96
57.
Gribble testified she started taking files from the
office in mid -1984, 97 "over a year" before she quit in August 1985.98
That is, she started bilking her insurance company and stealing patient's
records shortly before 9/7/84. After Stapleton & Hammersly gave her
immunity from prosecution and reason to think she could get away with it.
Shortly after I said the Lincoln Co. DA's office prosecuted a patently bogus
State vs. Hawkins case.99 And shortly
after I impugned their honesty in an article.
58.
Stapleton and Hammersly also gave Dobson immunity from prosecution in return
for:
- Confidential information about my
patients;
- Testifying falsely to
at least two grand juries100 to get criminal
indictments for insurance fraud and tampering with a witness and evidence;
- Perjury, when she testified I went to her
home after Hutton vs. McIver was filed and had her change Baggs' appointment
time.
59.
Dobson was Huegli's key witness in Hutton vs. McIver. and the state's chief
witness in State of Oregon vs. McIver. She'd been my secretary since
1979. My family and I were on vacation when, by telephone, in August
1985, she told me she resigned. She had Gribble take over.
60.
She, with Gribble, later gave Hammersly, Huegli, Menzies, and McLaughlin,
names of around 100 patients, along with their confidential information.
61.
Dobson had many health problems. During the
Hutton vs. McIver civil trial, George Kjaer, M.D., testified her test
results showed clinical signs of brain damage.101
The last year she worked she became increasingly disorganized. She
couldn't account for more than $30,000 in office funds and more than
$150,000 in unsent statements. I kept her on against the advice of my
accountant, Greg Ripke. She used the appointment book to jot notes,
Avon sales, hairdressing and patient appointments, doodle and erase. I
didn't rely on the book because I couldn't make heads or tails of her notes.
At the end of each day she posted a piece of paper with the next day's
actual schedule on my door.
62.
After Huegli filed the Ward case (5/15/85) and before he came up with
Hutton v. McIver (9/6/85) my insurance company's lawyer, Ron Stephenson,
asked to see my appointment book for the time Ward was a patient. I
called Dobson to ask her to decipher it. Ward's allegations surprised
us. She'd often brought candy, flowers, and other little gifts to the
office, and had gone out her way to be pleasant. Dobson asked me to
come to her home.
63.
However, Dobson later testified I went there to talk about the Hutton case,
rather than Ward. Prosecutors built the tampering charge on the claim I went
to Dobson's house after Huegli filed Hutton vs. McIver.
64.
Dobson initially said I went to see her on the 16th or
17th of September 1985.102 Then, she
realized she met my secretary, June Helbert, in "May or June,"103
or "July or August" 1985.104 She
wasn't certain what month she'd gone to the office on the last of two visits
to "talk about the suit just filed" against me and explain her records.
She was certain: 1) the meeting took place before September, and 2)
it wasn't about Hutton vs. McIver. This was weeks, even
months, before Huegli solicited Hutton.
69.
June Helbert testified she met Dobson in "mid-July" of 1985. She said
"within two or three days" after this I asked her about the appointment book
& told her I was taking it to Dobson's house. She knew this concerned
Ward vs. McIver. This was before Huegli filed Hutton vs.
Mclver.
70.
Mary
Dobson's testimony:105
[E. 131 A, L. 7 -
133 A, L. 13-17]
77.
But confused testimony can't change the confirmable fact Baggs' appointment
time wasn't altered. It can't change Dobson's testimony she met June
Helbert in the office before Hutton vs. McIver was filed,
showing I went to her house long before prosecutors said I did. It
can't change Mrs. Helbert's testimony I took the appointment book to Mrs.
Dobson's home "Within two - three days" after Ward vs. McIver
was filed - in mid-July.
78.
Dobson called my office repeatedly after Huegli filed
the Hutton case. During this time she was meeting with Huegli,
Hammersly, & Menzies. She spoke with June Helbert and me. She
claimed Hammersly wanted her to go before a grand jury to say something
against me, but was vague about what. She sounded confused. She
had difficulty being specific. She said he suggested they could charge
her son with drug abuse. And she was terrified Hammersly would have
her daughter investigated by CSD for endangering her granddaughter.108
79.
Dobson told June Helbert and me Hammersly threatened she could "do it the
easy way or the hard way." That is, say certain things to a grand
jury or risk having her son and daughter investigated for drug, and child
abuse, respectively. She said Hammersly repeatedly assured her the
statements she would make weren't harmful, just part of a larger picture
they needed to make a point.
80.
The picture became clear when she testified I came
after Huegli filed Hutton vs. McIver
to have her change Baggs' name from 5: PM to 1: PM.109
81.
Dobson had apparently mentioned my visit and general conversation to Huegli.
Including my ribbing her about her note taking system and writing some name
at 7 o'clock or later. Hammersly and Detective Menzies then spoke with her.
Subsequently, she declared I'd come to her home after Hutton vs. McIver
was filed, rather than after Ward vs. McIver. That I asked her
to alter Betty Baggs' appointment time, instead of teasing her about the way
she sometimes jotted names in after hours time slots as reminders to bill or
call people, etc.
82.
Huegli then claimed he contacted the DA's office because Dobson told him
this latter version. This allowed him to enhance his civil case, and
prosecutors to charge me with tampering with evidence and a witness.
83.
The bottom line, of course, is photomicrographs and other state of the art
scientific tests establish the physical impossibility the paper fibers of
the time slot were altered by writing or erasing. The unequivocal lack
of tampering shows:
- The "crime" never happened;
- Dobson lied about altering the record;
- Huegli - Gribble lied in their claim she
told them she altered it;
- Stapleton - Hammersly lied when they said
Huegli told them Dobson claimed she altered it.
- Stapleton, Hammersly, Marquis, Glode, and
Barnett lied when they claimed the record had been altered.
- Stapleton, Huegli, Marquis, and Barnett
suborned perjury when they allowed Dobson to testify she altered it.
- McMullen lied when he denied examining it
and said he thought it had been altered;
- Huckleberry lied when, after examining it
during a post-conviction trial, and hearing experts testify they found no
sign of alteration, he ruled it was altered.
- Avakian lied when,
after examining the book and reading Dobson's recantation and the state
expert's testimony, he ruled it was altered.110
- Assistant Attorney
General Rives Kistler lied to apellate judges when he told them the record
was altered. He also lied about what defense & state experts'
testimony.111
84.
I first heard I was a grand jury target when, over a
month before the indictment, a prosecutor in Memphis announced it in court
10 minutes after calling the Lincoln Co. DA's office. Prosecutors
tried to discredit me with that information,112
along with the complaints and copies of depositions Huegli took in his civil
cases, and the licensing board's notice of intent to revoke my license.
85.
Also, at this time, I appeared on a Town Hall TV
program. It covered allegations of sex abuse, psychological
evaluations, and treatment programs at Oregon State Hospital. I said
much of this work was junk science. Specifically, the penile
plethysmograph, the ink blots & other invalid techniques. After the
show, psychologist Orrin Bolstadt, whose psychologist wife's work in one
case113 I'd called bogus, walked up to chirp
I was soon going to get my "comeuppance" and have criminal charges
brought against me. He wouldn't give details. I was indicted a
month later.
86.
Up until this time, in spite of prosecutor's efforts, I
continued to testify as an expert witness and speak out against bogus
prosecutions and sham mental health experts. On lawyer Tom Cooney's
advice I let the insurance company settle the civil complaints to get them
out of the way.114
87.
I took part in a videotaped study of abused and non-abused children with the
"anatomical dolls" relied on by CSD workers and prosecutors. This, and
later studies, showed the dolls were scientifically worthless as diagnostic
instruments.
88.
I suspected Stapleton & Hammersly115
wanted identities of these children, and information about my patients.
Some were in law enforcement, others were lawyers. Suspicions
confirmed. It turned out they got much of this information from Dobson
& Gribble. Around this time, I discovered somebody stole patients
files from my office and someone tampered with my mail in the Newport post
office each night.
89.
Stapleton, Hammersly, & Menzies116
also hatched a phony investigation for insurance fraud. They got
confidential patient information, including patients' psychological
evaluations and diagnosis, by sending insurance companies bogus subpoenas
marked "investigation pending" not issued by a grand jury or under
judicial supervision. They tracked my speaking engagements and cases
in which I was going to testify. They got the postal service to put a
30-day cover on my mail in 4/15/86. When it expired the postal service
extended it from 5/13/86 to 6/15/86 at the request of Cpt. Mike Fitzpatrick,
Richland WA, police department. Ostensibly, he told me, because he
thought I might be in contact with two people who'd consulted with me and
were later charged with kidnaping and interstate flight.
90.
The postal service extended it well beyond 9/4/86.
Menzies' notes show he asked postal inspector Tom Shipley to extend the
cover into November 1986.117 Lincoln
County prosecutors used it as a fishing expedition. "Cover" means
copying information on the envelope. But some test letters I sent were
opened, others weren't delivered.
91.
My secretary, June Helbert, and I realized someone had
stolen files from the office. I suspected Stapleton, Hammersly,
Menzies, & Huegli were involved. This turned out to be true.
Huegli displayed some of these documents in the civil trial and prosecutors
had copies.118, 119
92.
So I hid some files and destroyed others. I
announced this in a local paper and a tape recording to let people know my
concern about dishonesty in the DA's office.120
This recording later became part of an impeachment packet they sent lawyers
and prosecutors throughout the country. Clearly, they wanted to put me
out of business.
93.
The contrived criminal indictments did the job.
94.
I showed the appointment book to my lawyer, Des Connall. He saw it
wasn't erased and told me to hold onto it so he wouldn't be in the evidence
chain. I knew Stapleton, Hammersly, & Huegli got information about my
patients illegally. That they had Gribble steal documents from my
office. So I asked my wife to put the book and some patients' files
someplace outside the house.
95.
However, come trial time, we couldn't find the book.121
Marquis knew the alteration didn't exist when he had Dobson testify.
But he knew prosecutors Hammersly & Stapleton gave Dobson immunity from
prosecution for perjury for saying it did. So, on her word, I was
convicted of tampering with evidence, business records, and a witness.
96.
He knew Dobson's claim was false because he saw the tangible lack of
any signs of alteration in the copy of the page. He also worked with
Stapleton and Hammersly who framed the bogus charge.
97.
But he had a potential glitch in his case.
98.
Summary:
In a 4/15/86 deposition in Hutton vs. McIver, Hutton testified
she went to my office for a 12/16/83 appointment. She made
unequivocal, graphic, allegations about that visit to show she
remembered the appointment date correctly. But in the July, 1988
criminal trial, Oregon vs. McIver, and a 3/14/96 deposition,
McIver vs. Hutton, et al, she reversed her testimony to say she
didn't go that day.
99.
The date, December 16, 1983, was the keystone of the tampering
charges. Hutton changed her testimony so it wouldn't contradict
Marquis' claim that, after she filed her suit, I had her 5: PM appointment
time for 12/16/83 changed to 1 :PM.
100.
If she said she kept her appointment, she'd have had to say it was at 1: PM
(The time actually written in the appointment book) or 5: PM (The time
Marquis declared was written in the book. ).
101.
If she said 1: PM she'd gut his case.
102.
If she said 5: PM, she'd have to explain why, after
office hours, 8 days after applying for a wedding license, and one month
before she married,122 she went to see a man
who, according to Robert Hutton, who moved in with her 13 days before,123
she professed she was "deathly afraid" of, who used her for sex,
exposed himself to her, threatened her, and made her feel "dirty."124
103.
So when Marquis (who read in her 4/15/86 deposition she
kept the appointment)125 asked her about it
during the criminal trial, she said she didn't go.
104.
Under cross examination, however, she admitted that on
12/15/83 she'd told her physician she had an appointment with me.126
And that she submitted a bill and was paid mileage for going to that
12/16/83 appointment.127 She testified
the travel was for a visit to her physician's office. Yet his records
don't show her there on 12/16/83.
105.
SAIF128
records also show that on 2/16/84 they received a health insurance claim
form from my office for the 12/16/83 office visit.129
SAIF has no record of Hutton disputing the bill.130
My secretary also recorded her 12/16/83 visit on a patient ledger card.
And I took notes during the 12/16/83 appointment.131
106.
April
15, 1986 Deposition132
E 65 A, L 24-25:
E 65 B- L. 1 - 6
