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 1^st 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 3^rd 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]

          June Helbert testified I took the appointment book to Dobson's within two or three days after they met in July, 1985:

Oregon vs. McIver, Lincoln Co. # 370940, 370941.

[E. 183 C, L. 9. - E 184 ]

72.

          Gribble hadn't yet given Huegli Hutton's name.

73.

Mid - July visit.

          Dobson came to the office at my request to discuss her notes & billing system.  She then asked me to come to her home to do it.  As this was the first time I had been there she gave me a tour.  I saw no one else there.  She looked over the book as I wandered about the living room.  I teased her about drawings she'd made, and joked it looked like she'd written a woman's name (not Baggs') in the evening, at around at 7: PM., though none was.  I said something to the effect that it would horrify the insurance company lawyers if it looked like I saw women after hours.  A fleeting, inconsequential spoof.  I neither asked her to erase anything nor thought of stopping her if she did.

It was no more an issue than what she had for breakfast.

74.

          Even though prosecutors cited testimony I gave during the Baggs vs. McIver civil trial to say it was.  They charged it showed I asked her to change Baggs' appointment time.  However, I confused Huegli's first case (Ward), which I went to Dobson's house to discuss, with his second (Baggs).  My testimony appeared to support their assumption.

75.

          Except for the unyielding absence of any alteration.¹⁰⁶

76.

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

E. 66 Co L. 8 - 25

E. 66 D. L. 22 - 25

E. 67 A. L.1 - 6

          But, when Marquis, then Connall, asked her about the date during Oregon vs. McIver she said she didn't go to my office on 12/16/83:

107.

Testimony in Oregon vs. McIver¹³³

E. 73 B. L. 7 - 16

E.74B.L.14-15

E. 74 B. L. 20 - 25

E. 74 C. L. 1 - 2

           When Mr. Mackesson asked her about the 12/16/83 appointment, she changed her testimony again to say she knew there was an appointment that day but she didn't keep it :

E 75 D, L. 2 - 25

E. 76 A. L. 1 - 25

E. 76 Bo L. 1 - 10

E. 76 C. L. 11 - 25

E. 76 D, L. 1 - 13

108.

Deposition: McIver vs. CBS. et al¹³⁵

E. 84 A. L. 462 - 470

109.

          Hutton committed perjury when she swore she didn't go to the appointment.  Marquis & Huegli knew it.  She changed her testimony to further the charge I had Dobson transpose her name from a nonexistent 5: PM appointment to the actual 1: PM. time.¹³⁶

110.

          Attorneys Stephenson & Martin sent Huegli copies of Baggs' insurance form, ledger card, and case notes during Hutton vs. McIver.  He knew she'd previously testified she kept the appointment.  He read my notes of her 12/16/83 visit.  He also read, in Dr. Robbins' notes, she asked for mileage payment for this visit.  And he had SAIF records showing they paid it.¹³⁷  Marquis had these transcripts & knew this.

111.

          My wife found the book when I was in the penitentiary.  I got a post-conviction trial on the claim prosecutors knowingly presented false evidence.

112.

Summary:

Before this trial, however, A Current Affair nationally broadcast a program with a segment about me called Dr. Dirty on September 22, 1991, and at least three other times after that throughout 1991 - 1992.  Betty Hutton said I used her for sex.  An actor depicted a doctor (me) slowly unzipping his fly approaching a seated female's (Baggs) face.  Marquis proclaimed I had sex with patients.  He made the factual assertion I told Dobson to alter a record (As opposed to having been found guilty of doing it.).

113.

          Producer Palatnik's crew filmed Marquis in the Lincoln County courthouse library walking into the main courtroom folder in hand pretending court was in session on a Sunday.

114.

          Palatnik, Oboyle, & McGowan¹³⁸ advanced Marquis' and Hutton's allegations with no effort to check them out.¹³⁹  Fox Attorney Muriel Ries, Bill McGowan & Maureen O'Boyle didn't read a single pertinent document, or try to contact Marquis, Hutton, Huegli, psychology licensing board members, Dr. Robbins, attorneys Stephenson, Martyn, Connall, Mackesson, Cooney, or me.  Following, is the transcript of her show, Dr. Dirty: (Paragraphs numbered for reference. Palatnik's copy in bold)

115.

116.

          Baloney.  Palatnik called to ask if I would be on a show about interviewing children in cases of alleged abuse.  I agreed on condition my attorney Wayne Mackesson approved and he didn't.

117.

          So, at Palatnick's request, I arranged for her to get tapes of some of my interviews with children & a talk about this I gave to the Oregon Sheriffs' Association, from Mrs. Velma Hartwig, who she interviewed in Eddyville.  Palatnik also led Mr. and Mrs. Hartwig to believe she was doing a show about false allegations of child molestation.   She didn't say the program was about the civil & criminal charges against me.

118.

          She parroted everything Marquis & Hutton said.  She made no attempt to examine documents she could easily have gotten with a note or call to anyone of sundry sources (The Lincoln County District Attorney's office; my civil case attorneys Tom Cooney, Chrys Martin & Ronald Stephenson; my criminal case attorneys Des Connall & Wayne Mackesson; the Alaska, Ohio, and Minnesota licensing boards, me) These documents include:

- My 12/26/90 petition for post-conviction relief claiming prosecutors relied on perjured testimony. [E. 109 ]

- Dobson's 3/26/91 deposition in which she admitted she saw no signs of the erasures she had claimed she made at my request. [E. 126 - 127 ]

- Dr. Arlen Quan's 5/17/84 statement Hutton said she had not had sexual relations with me. [E. 49 D ]

- The 2/4/86 Kennemer-Hawkins report stating Hutton told psychology board members intercourse took place "at least 2 times" in her home, as opposed to his office, as she claimed in her complaint. [E. 94 - 95 AB ]

- Hutton's 10/23/85 deposition answer, "No," when asked if she ever had sexual relations with me in my office as she claimed in her complaint; [E. 67 D, L. 11 - 13]

- Hutton depositions, testimony, & other records showing she committed perjury when she testified said she didn't keep her 12/16/83 appointment (discussion supra).

- Hutton's letters to her deceased husband & me. [E. 1345 - 156]

- Hutton's medical record; showing suicide attempts, marriage problems, drug abuse.

- My case notes on Hutton.

- My correspondence with professionals concerning Hutton's condition. [E 194 B]

- Hutton's psychological test results. [E. 115 D]

- Attorney Thomas Cooney's 12/22/89 affidavit stating he advised me to let the insurance
carrier settle to reduce exposure. [E. 125]

- Hutton's Division of Workmen's Compensation file.

- Ron Robert's 2/20/86 statement about Betty Hutton and her new husband. [E 194 A]

119.

          Had Palatnik honestly said she was doing a show on the civil and criminal cases I would have jumped at the chance to show her these documents.  Especially the appointment book, which was physical evidence the tampering convictions were bogus.

120.

          It took a calculated effort for her to ignore so many sources of information.¹⁴⁰  Literally, the only thing she got right was my name.  She swore falsely in a 3/31/93 affidavit when she claimed she "... took steps which I, as a responsible journalist, ordinarily take and which are considered common practice in the field of journalism when researching an investigative story."¹⁴¹

121.

          Her "research" was so nonexistent she failed to uncover otherwise inconsequential information I'm not a "psychiatrist," I didn't lose a "medical license", and I wasn't "fighting" to get my license back.¹⁴²

122.

          It's plain from Hutton's answers to deposition questions Palatnik didn't ask to see medical records, or contact Huegli, or talk with Dr. Jerry Robbins.  Neither did she ask Hutton if she'd seen subsequent therapists, nor ask to talk with anyone who knew her at the time of her alleged sexual relationship with me:

124.

McIver vs. CBS, Hutton, Marquis, et al¹⁴³

125.

Post conviction trial¹⁴⁴

Summary

Judge Huckleberry & prosecutor Barnett denied my right to a fair post-conviction trial by lying about evidence they heard, read, and saw.

126.

          Judge Huckleberry upheld the conviction to find I had Dobson erase Baggs' name written in a 12/16/83 appointment book page at 5: PM, and rewrite it at 1: PM, after first erasing the name written there.  Although in this 1/17/92 post conviction trial:

127.

- He heard defense and state experts testify they found no sign of erasure or rewriting at 1: PM, 4: PM, or 5: PM. in the appointment book;

- He read, in her 3/26/91 deposition, that Dobson reversed her testimony to admit there wasn't any erasure or rewriting;

- He saw, literally, when he examined the page in court, the concrete absence of signs of the alleged erasure or rewriting.

128.

          Yet, in his Memorandum Of Opinion, he attributed testimony to the document experts which was completely opposite of what the transcript shows they actually said.

129.

          State witness Dobson had testified, to at least one grand jury, and juries in a civil and criminal trial, that I had her erase Baggs' name from the 5 PM slot and rewrite it in the 1 PM slot for 12/16/83.  But on 3/26/91, when attorney Mackesson confronted her with the page, she admitted there wasn't any erasure.

130.

          She conferred with Barnett then claimed "... it must have been at 4 o'clock."¹⁴⁵

131.

[E. 127 A, L. 25: E. 127 D.: E. 126 ]

132.

          But Barnett had the same glitch Marquis had with Hutton's appointment time.¹⁴⁷  If the man scheduled at 4: PM was there, it would shoot down the revamped claim Baggs' name had been written (and erased) at 4: PM, not 5: PM, after all.¹⁴⁸  So she came up with Marquis' solution and had the patient, John Mills, testify he didn't go that day.  He said he didn't go there in December

("... too close to Christmas.").

133.

          There was a second glitch and a second solution.  Blue Cross routinely sent patients copies of insurance billing forms listing dates and charges.  If Mills acknowledged receiving a copy for December, it would be simple to show he accepted the dates and charges without challenge.  Which would give lie to his testimony that he hadn't kept his appointment, and Dobson's claim Baggs' name was written in, and erased from, the revised 4: o'clock slot.

134.

          Mackesson then showed Mills the copy of the insurance form listing four December visits (including the 16^th).¹⁴⁹  Mills initially admitted he'd probably seen it, then said he hadn't and the dates were wrong:¹⁵⁰

135.

McIver vs. Oregon, Lincoln Co. # 904733

E. 105 B- L. 18 - 25

(Mackesson)

(Mills)

E.105C_L.4-7

E 105 C- L. 24-25: E. 106 A- L.1-10.

E. 106 B. L. 3-5.

(Barnett)

136.

          Yet the Blue Cross form he received at the time lists him seeing Dr. McIver on December 1,8, 16, and 21.  Mills lied to conform his testimony to the revised Dobson- Barnett version that Baggs' appointment had really been at 4: PM, rather than 5: PM., after all.

137.

Summary: Barnett knew Baggs' name hadn't been transposed from 5 to 1 PM as she charged because her expert found no sign of alteration in either slot and she saw no sign of alteration.  When Dobson recanted, Barnett had her say it was at 4 PM. (Although her expert testified he found no sign of alteration there either). When Mill's records showed he kept the 4 P.M. appointment, Barnett had him testify he didn't.

138.

          Judge Huckleberry's memorandum version of underlying facts is at odds with reality:

"The alteration would show that Mrs. Hutton was in his office for an appointment at 1:00 P.M. on December 16, 1983, as opposed to later in the day.  The petitioner says that it was his practice not to see a female patient alone in his office.  If the appointment of Mrs. Hutton was at 1:00 P.M., office staff was present.  If the appointment was at 4:00 P.M. or 5:00 P.M., it appears that the petitioner would have been alone with Mrs. Hutton, which evidence would have been consistent with Mrs. Hutton's theory of her case against McIver."¹⁵¹

139.

          This is duplicitous. Judge Huckleberry and Barnett knew Hutton told conflicting versions of her story.  They also lied about the document examiner's conclusions:

140.

          Dr. Grimsbo examined the document with his naked eye, a Sony infrared video camera, various filters, and hot light, to test for graphite particles left by erased writing.  He wrote his initials on a test section and erased them.  With a stereo microscope at 20 to 30 power he saw that erasing disrupted fibers.  This showed erasure was detectable.  He also used the microscope to examine alleged alterations.  And oblique lighting (electrostatic data process) to see if there were signs of indented writing:

141.

E. 44 D. L. 3 - 21

142.

          Could it be plainer?  Dr. Grimsbo examined the page at l:PM, 4:PM, and 5:PM.  He found no sign of prior writing or erasure.  No microscopic trace of graphite.  No indentation.  No disrupted fiber.  Nothing but the absence of alteration.

143.

          Lt. Hurley, used a stereo microscope, standard microscope, filters, different types of high contrast film, different printing papers, an ultraviolet high intensity Luma light, a long wave & a short wave ultraviolet light, & electrostatic data process.  He couldn't find any sign of prior writing or erasure at 1 :PM, 4:PM, or 5:PM^{152, 153}

144.

          Yet Judge Huckleberry (and Ms. Barnett, to the extent she wrote the memorandum)¹⁵⁴ gave a brazenly false version of Lt. Hurley's testimony.  Their depiction is an across-the-board reversal, the diametric opposite, of what he actually said:

145.

Memorandum¹⁵⁵

"Lt. Michael Hurley ... testified that given the nature of the paper upon which these appointments were noted, he is unable to form an opinion one way or another whether an erasure had occurred."

146.

Transcript

E. 47 BCD

147.

          Lt. Hurley clearly did not testify (per the memorandum) "... that given the nature of the paper upon which these appointments were noted, he is unable to form an opinion one way or another whether an erasure had occurred."  Totally the opposite.

148.

          Neither expert found a hint of erasing on the original.  Therefore, prosecutors couldn't see any on the copy.  They saw only tangible absence of alteration.  So Barnett asked Dr. Grimsbo if it wasn't possible there could have been an "undetectable" erasure there:¹⁵⁶

149.

          Ms. Barnett: "Now, the truth is, Mr. Grimsbo -- the truth is that you didn't detect any erasure, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't one there?"

          Dr. Grimsbo: "If we're looking at it from the fact of 100% certainty, I cannot say that someone would not have erased that. As an example, I could go to Mervyn's to buy a sheet, and the sheet is pressed, folded, and in a plastic bag. I buy the sheet in good faith that it hasn't been on another bed. I don't believe it to have been on another bed, but I can't say with 100% certainty that it has never been on another bed.

          The same way here. I can't find any indication that there was writing in those areas. My opinion is, based on that, that had not been written and obliterated. I can't say 100% that it couldn't have happened, because things do happen. There is always the possibility."

150.

          The answer couldn't be clearer.  Judge Huckleberry knew this.  He's a bright man who enjoys reading mind puzzle books and is conversant with the concept of probability theory.  He knew there are no absolutes in science.  He knew it was dishonest to hold Dr. Grimsbo's analogy meant the opposite of what he said.  Barnett had asked if it was possible undetectable erasures could exist.

          Dr. Grimsbo explained, by analogy, anything was possible, but in this case, the probability was negligible.  However Judge Huckleberry turned his statement on its head to mean there was an acceptable probability an undetectable erasure existed.

151.

          Our language is replete with abstract ways to compare things; to say "big" and "little" and "more than" and "less than."  Analogies like: "He's got the chance of a grasshopper tossed in a bass pond," "When pigs fly," or "A snowball's chance in hell"  ... usually get the idea across without numerical elucidation.  They mean virtually no possibility; infinitesimally small likelihood.

152.

          The transcript shows both experts' testimony was unequivocal.  They said they didn't see any signs of alteration at 1, 4, or 5 P.M. (the time allegedly erased): "I didn't see any" ... "none that were detected"... "No."

153.

          "No" isn't up for interpretation.  There's no part of "NO" to misunderstand.  Judge Huckleberry & Ms. Barnett falsified the experts' opinions.

154.

          Assistant Attorney General Rives Kistler, echoed Judge Huckleberry's fiction in his 11/27/ 92 brief to the appellate court.¹⁵⁷

          "Petitioner's expert conceded that the appointment log could have been altered if it were done very carefully, and the state's expert agreed.  Far from being "uncontroverted." as petitioner argues, the evidence was both controverted and supported the post-conviction court's finding.  If the log were altered, then the factual predicate for petitioner's post-conviction claim fails."

155.

          By implication: The verifiably unaltered log shows the factual predicate for the post-conviction claim was justified, and Barnett's claim and Judge Huckleberry's decision weren't justified.  (Kistler also parroted other distortions in the memorandum, showed a selective inattention to the record, & lied to appellate judges.¹⁵⁸)

156.

          As previously noted, it was physically impossible to see alteration on a copy of a page experts couldn't detect on the actual page.  So Marquis couldn't have seen the erasure he declared was there in the criminal trial, testified was there in the post-conviction hearing,¹⁵⁹ & proclaimed was there on A Current Affair:

157.

          In sum: Barnett saw the unaltered actual page; the undisturbed fibers, lack of pencil grooves and absence of lead particles.  All plainly visible to the naked eye.  She couldn't possibly see any sign of erasing her expert admitted he couldn't see.  But she claimed, and let Marquis falsely testify, the 5:PM slot was erased.¹⁶⁰

158.

          Judge Huckleberry looked at the page.  He saw the time slot unmarred by any sign of alteration; smudges, indentations, or disturbed fibers.  He heard document experts testify they found no alteration.  He knew Dobson recanted.  Yet he claimed it was altered.  He lied about tangible, verifiable, reality and denied my right to a fair trial.

159.

          Attorney Bradley Avakian was Psychology Board Hearing Officer on April 20, 1993. He read transcripts of the criminal and post-conviction trials supplied by Assistant Attorney General Bennie Won.  He read Dobson's admission the 5 P.M. time was unaltered & her revised claim she erased Baggs' name from the 4 P.M. slot and wrote in Mills' name.  He read her assertion she previously said this to Marquis.

160.

          He read Hutton's declaration she didn't go to the office on 12/16/83, although her previous testimony and documentary evidence shows she did.

161.

          He read Mills' testimony he didn't go to the office on 12/16/83, although office and Blue Cross records showed he did.

162.

          He read the document experts' unequivocal assertion they didn't find signs of alteration at either time. Yet he later wrote, "Neither expert provided a definitive opinion on whether an erasure had been made."¹⁶¹

163.

          He agreed to examine all the evidence, including the appointment book.  I left a stereoscopic microscope with him in case he wanted to verify the absence of alteration he'd see with his naked eyes.  He later admitted he saw no sign of the alleged alteration:¹⁶²

164.

          Yet he declared the page was altered and lied in his report to the psychology board:

          "When the licensee instructed Mrs. Dobson to alter the appointment book he misused his influence as a psychologist & supervisor in violation of Principle 1f (of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists.).¹⁶⁴

          "The licensee undertook activity which would likely lead to the harm of his employee because of his own personal problems in violation of Principle 2 f.  The licensee engaged in a practice which resulted in an illegal & unjustifiable action in violation of Principle 3 b."¹⁶⁵

          "The conduct was a clear exploitation of a subordinate individual who was by nature of that subordination in a professionally vulnerable position.  The conduct placed the employee in a position of legal harm to herself since she was committing a potentially illegal act by altering the appointment book.  The licensee allowed his personal problems to interfere with his professional relationship with an employee.  The licensee's conduct was committed for completely self-serving reasons in that the alteration of the appointment book supported his defense in a civil lawsuit."¹⁶⁶

165.

          This left me a convicted felon unable to practice my profession for a living.

166.

          Depositions, trial transcripts, & other documents listed as Exhibits fully support the
charges against the defendants.  They are incorporated into this affidavit.

167.

          Proof tampering charges were manufactured is, besides photomicrographs & other scientific findings, the appointment book itself.  It will be available at trial.

168.

          Given my experience with the courts (as expert witness and defendant) I would be less than candid if I didn't express reservations about finding a judge who won't shield fellow judges and prosecutors.  One who'll let a jury to hear these eminently triable facts.

169.

          I made exhibit copies from original, & copies of, original documents.  I affirm all statements in this affidavit are true.

William F. McIver II, PhD.
Pro Se

Footnotes

¹ They'd knowingly use patently phony expert witnesses, such as Ann Fillmore, with a non existent Pill. in "Victimology & Hostage Taking" from the University of Edinburgh (Scotland). Or Ian Bays, MD, who was not
only a biased, incompetent interviewer, but routinely lied on the witness stand.  [Back]

² Let readers ask if any "trea1ment" could change their sexual preference. People who overtly use children for sex are no more likely to change their rationalizations than professionals who covertly use them for personal gain. Their justifications are perverse, fixed, & endless.  [Back]

³ e.g. In 1987, I met with representatives of the Catholic Diocese in Cleveland. Ohio. It had the most extensive parochial school system in the country.  I told them that, considering the number of teachers and priests under their supervision, it was reasonable to believe some molested children & some would be falsely accused of molesting children.  I suggested ways to investigate this & develop a program to minimize false accusations and deal with those that were valid.  They weren't interested.  [Back]

⁴ Presumably, lawyers who thought their client guilty weren't as likely to ask me to consult.  [Back]

⁵ "Misused Tool" - Newport News Times. 8/21/84. A Case for a Therapeutic Interview in situations of Alleged Sexual Molestation, The Champion, Jan-Feb, 1986.  This article was published in legal journals in a number of states, including Oregon. [E. 10]  [Back]

⁶ Betty Baggs later married Robert Hutton.  She filed false and defamatory civil charges, committed perjury in a civil and criminal trial, & lied about these charges 1) to members of the Psychology Licensing Board; 2) on A Current Affair; 3) in an affidavit; 4) in four depositions; 4) to various doctors.  [Back]

⁷ They also piled on equally bogus charges of insurance fraud they refused to try in spite of my invitations to do so.  [Back]

⁸ Hutton vs McIver, Lincoln Co., # 85-1319 [E-50]  [Back]

⁹ Attorney Thomas Cooney's affidavit, (E 125-0]  [Back]

¹⁰ Oregon vs McIver, Lincoln County # 870940; 870941 - [E-10]  [Back]

¹¹ McIver vs. Oregon, Lincoln County # 904733. Post-conviction trial.  [Back]

¹² Marquis affidavit, McIver vs. CBS et al; U.S, District Court # 92-632TC [E-IOI-I03 A]  [Back]

¹³ Ward v. McIver, Lincoln. Co. A 8505-03020 [E 117]  [Back]

¹⁴ Huegli to Oregon Bar: "A thorough investigation led to the conclusion her case had a foundation in fact ..." [E 48; Par. 2]  [Back]

¹⁵ For consistency, Sharon Gribble-Cunningham is referred to as Sharon Gribble.  [Back]

¹⁶ I deny having any kind of sexual contact or relationship with Baggs - Hutton anytime.  Including oral, anal, vaginal, visual, phone, frottage; or any permutation of same.  [Back]

¹⁷ Hutton vs McIver, Lincoln Co. # 851318.  To bolster his case, Huegli: 1) Committed theft by converting records Gribble stole from my office; 2) Falsely claimed Mary Dobson told him I asked her to alter a record; 3) Suborned perjury from Gribble & Dobson; 4) Knowingly let Hutton falsely testify about his initial contact with her; 5) Knowingly let her falsely testify she had sexual relations with me. 6) Knowingly let her falsely testify she didn't keep a 12/16/83 appointment with me. 7) Wrote false statements in an affidavit in her behalf. 8) Submitted a knowingly false complaint in Hutton v. McIver.  [Back]

¹⁸ In an 8/23/86 letter to Jim Huegli, attorney Chrys Martin wrote: "Jim, as you admitted to me by phone, and as is clear from your letter; your recent "re-evaluation" of the case and demand of $500,000 is a thinly-veiled attempt to set up Dr.McIver's insurance carrier for a bad faith claim." [E 97 A, Par. 2]  [Back]

¹⁹ Hutton deposition; Hutton vs. McIver, 85-1318 (4/15/86) [E 70 B ,L. 21 - E 70 C, L. 1-16]  [Back]

²⁰ Hutton deposition, Hutton vs. McIver,  85-1318 (7/23/86) [E 64 B, L. 15 - 64 CD, L. 10 - 13]  [Back]

²¹ Huegli letter to Dr. Robbins [E 49 B]  [Back]

²² Paulsen deposition, Hutton vs. McIver, Lincoln Co. # 85138. [E 108 C,D]  [Back]

²³ Hutton deposition Hutton vs. McIver Lincoln Co. # 85138. (4/15/86) [E 70 - B; L. 4 - 16].  [Back]

²⁴ Quan letter to SAIF [E 49 D]  [Back]

²⁵ Wedding application & certificate, [ E 74 D]  [Back]

²⁶ Robbins deposition; Hutton vs. McIver Lincoln Co. # 85138. [E. 112 C, L. 21 - E 112 D, L. 4].  The Oregon Medical board called Dr. Robbins on the carpet for acceding to her demands for drugs.  [Back]

²⁷ supra, & Hutton deposition, Hutton vs. McIver Lincoln Co. # 85138 (10/23/85) - [E 51 B - 52 A]  [Back]

²⁸ Computer print out of Hutton answers to MMPI test. [E 115 D]  [Back]

²⁹ Robbins' deposition, Hutton vs. McIver # 851318. [E 112A, L. 23 - 25].  [Back]

³⁰ ibid [E 112 B L. 22 - 24]  [Back]

³¹ ibid[EI12C,L.21,- EI12D-L.I-6]  [Back]

³² ibid [E 114 A, L 3 - 25 ]  [Back]

³³ Physician's Assistant Ferguson's chart notes. [E 115 A]  [Back]

³⁴ Dr. Arlen Quan's 5/17/84 letter [E 49 D] - [emphasis added] "... she alleged that some months ago Dr. McIver had wanted to have an affair with her but that she resisted though on one occasion he had physically touched her.  However; there had been no sexual intercourse." (Note: Mrs. Hutton met Mr. Hutton in July, 1983 [she claimed it was August].  He moved into her home 12/1/83.  They were married on 1/22/84.  Mrs. Hutton saw Dr. Quan 9 - 10 months after she met Mr. Hutton, 5 months after they started living together, & 4 months after they married.  "Some months ago" suggests Dr. McIver "wanted to have an affair" while she was going with Mr. Hutton, or living with him, or was a newlywed.)  [Back]

³⁵ Hutton vs. McIver. Lincoln Co.# 851318. [E 50].  [Back]

³⁶ Hutton vs. McIver, supra, [E 58-B, line 2]  [Back]

³⁷ Hutton deposition (10/23/85), Hutton vs. McIver. Lincoln Co.# 851318 [E 75 B, L. 22-25]  [Back]

³⁸ McIver vs CBS, Hutton, Marquis, et al. CV 92-06327 -HO,. [E. 79, C, L. 77 - 91 ]  [Back]

³⁹ Robbins' deposition, Hutton vs. McIver. Linc Co. # 851318. [E 113 A, L. 5 - 8]  [Back]

⁴⁰ Kennemer - Hawkins report to Oregon Board. of Psychologists Examiners. [E 94 B, L. 7]  [Back]

⁴¹ Deposition (10/23/85), Hutton vs. McIver Lincoln Co. # 85138. [E 53 A, L. 2-25; E 53 B, L. 1]  [Back]

⁴² Ron Robert's statement to private investigator James McMahon.[ E. 194 A]  [Back]

⁴³ Hutton 4/15/86 deposition, Hutton vs. McIver Lincoln Co. # 851318. [E 68 A, L. 9]  [Back]

⁴⁴ Robbins' deposition, Hutton vs. McIver. Lincoln Co. # 851318. [E 114 A. L 18 - 21]  [Back]

⁴⁵ ibid, [E 113 D, L. 1-4]  [Back]

⁴⁶ ibid, [E 114 C, L. 10- - 25]  [Back]

⁴⁷ ibid, [E 113 C, L. 8-9 & E 115 - C] under "Fertility control."  [Back]

⁴⁸ Hutton 5/15/86 deposition, Hutton v. McIver. Lincoln Co. # 851318 [E 69-A, LI7-19]  [Back]

⁴⁹ The Eagle's nest ledger card. [E 93 A]  [Back]

⁵⁰ Dept. of Corrections form. [E 93 B]  [Back]

⁵¹ Hutton, 4/15/86 deposition. [E 68 D, L. 21-25]  [Back]

⁵² Hutton 4/15/86 deposition [E 67 -D, L. 11-13]  [Back]

⁵³ "Intentionally, wantonly, & recklessly" Hutton vs. McIver, Lincoln Co. # 851318. [E 50- B; L. 19-20]  [Back]

⁵⁴ Robbins deposition, Hutton vs. McIver, Lincoln Co. # 851318. [E 113 B, L 13]  [Back]

⁵⁵ Hutton vs. McIver, 10/23/85 deposition. [E 53 B, L. 18]  [Back]

⁵⁶ ibid, [E 61 A, L25 -& B, L. 1 - 7 ]  [Back]

⁵⁷ Oregon vs. McIver, Lincoln Co, 870940, 870941. [E 75-B; L. 20 through D; L 1 ]  [Back]

⁵⁸ This was 15 years before Monicagate, when a surprised country first heard oral sex wasn't sex.  [Back]

⁵⁹ Oregon vs. McIver, Lincoln Co, 870940, 870941. [E 75 C, L. 7-8]  [Back]

⁶⁰ Oregon vs. McIver, Lincoln Co. 870940, 87941 [E 73-D, E 74-A; L. 1-5]  [Back]

⁶¹ McIver vs- CBS. Hutton, Marquis, et al CV 92-06327 -HO. [E 79 D, L. 93; E 90 C, L. 1098; E 90 D - E 91, L. 1161 - 1165 ] Transcript available from Mrs. Sue Grabowsky (541) 689-0200  [Back]

⁶² ibid, [E 91 A, L 1170]  [Back]

⁶³ ibid, [E 91 B, L. 1265 - 1266 ]  [Back]

⁶⁴ Ibid [ E 92 B, L. 1269 ]  [Back]

⁶⁵ Ibid [E91 B,L.1273]  [Back]

⁶⁶ ibid[ E 91 BC, L. 1277 - 1282 ]  [Back]

⁶⁷ ibid[ E 79 C, L. 97]  [Back]

⁶⁸ ibid [E 79 C, L. 102]  [Back]

⁶⁹ ibid [E 79 C - 80 B, L. 103 - 121]  [Back]

⁷⁰ ibid [ E. 80 B, L. 125 - 129]  [Back]

⁷¹ ibid [E. 80 C, L. 145 ]  [Back]

⁷² ibid [E. 80 D, L. 147]  [Back]

⁷³ ibid [E. 80 D. L. 150 - 153 ]  [Back]

⁷⁴ Hutton vs McIver, Lincoln Co. # 851318. [E. 53 A-B. L. 1 - 25 ]  [Back]

⁷⁵ McIver vs CBS- Hutton- Marquis. et al, CV 92-06327 -HO; [E 81 AB, L. 202 - 207 ]  [Back]

⁷⁶ ibid [ E 81 B, L. 205 ]  [Back]

⁷⁷ ibid [E 81 BCD, L. 208 - 241 ]  [Back]

⁷⁸ McIver vs. CBS. et al, U.S. Dist. Ct. # 92-632TC. [E 77 C, L. 7-10 ]  [Back]

⁷⁹ [E.49A]  [Back]

⁸⁰ Huegli letter to Oregon Board of Psychologist Examiners, [E 49 A] ??  [Back]

⁸¹ Kennemer - Hawkins report to OBPE. [E 95 - 95 AB ]  [Back]

⁸² Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed. -"Investigate: to follow up step by step by patient inquiry or observation.  To trace or track, to search into; to examine and inquire into with care and accuracy; to find out by careful inquisition; the taking of evidence.  Investigation: The process of inquiring into or tracking down through inquiry, inspection, observation, search."  It's necessary to state the obvious because a common denominator in their actions has been the defendants' dogged refusal to honestly investigate & report results.  [Back]

⁸³ Mazur- Hart notice of proposed license revocation. [E. 95 CD ] Board members: Stanley-Mazur Hart, Laura Parrish, Raymond Sanders, Steve Stack, Nancy Hawkins, Courtney Goodmonson, William Kennemer.  [Back]

⁸⁴ Note: The defendants who promulgated tampering charges resolutely ignored the physical reality of paper, writing, & erasing.  Paper is a three-dimensional mat of interlaced fibers compressed to form a solid surface.  It has density, texture, & thickness.  Pencil lead is a honeycomb of layered graphite sheets bonded in gum.  An eraser is mostly rubber & pumice, hardened with zinc oxide & sulphur, held together with burnt vegetable oil, rough buffed & compressed.  Writing disrupts.  It drives graphite into, under, and between fibers.  It indents.  Erasing tears.  It pulls, pushes, & rips out graphite particles lodged in the mat.  It slashes, shears, twists, & bends fibers.  The more thorough an erasure the greater the destruction.  It can't be undone.  There's no such thing as an immaculate extirpation.  [Back]

⁸⁵ This appointment book will be evidence at the trial. Photomicrographs [E-163-164]  [Back]

⁸⁶ McIver vs. Oregon, Lincoln Co. # 904733.  [Back]

⁸⁷ McCrone Associates, Inc., Affidavit & report - [E 157-180]  [Back]

⁸⁸ "... capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to easily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy." [Uniform Rules of Evidence 9 (2) (d)]  [Back]

⁸⁹ McMullen Affidavit, McIver vs. Oregon, Lincoln Co. 904733. [E. 98 AB] Hammersly - Menzies affidavits [E. 98 CD ]  [Back]

⁹⁰ McIver vs. Oregon, Lincoln Co. # 904733.[ E. 40 C]  [Back]

⁹¹ Stephenson letter to Attorney Ernest Lundeen. [E. 116 A ]  [Back]

⁹² Gribble's insurance form [ E. 23 ]. Mrs. Helbert, secretary at the time, testified she never saw Barney in the office. Oregon vs. McIver, Lincoln Co. # 870940, 870941. [E. 40 A, L. 1 - 13 ]  [Back]

⁹³ District Attorney Ulys Stapleton, Assistant DA Clyde Hammersly  [Back]

⁹⁴ Trans., Ore ion vs. McIver. Lincoln Co, # 870940,870941. [E. 29 - B; L. 21-24] & Trans., Hutton vs. McIver, Linc. Co. # 851318 [E 17-D -E 18-A-D]  [Back]

⁹⁵ ibid, [E. 17 - 21; E. 33-34]  [Back]

⁹⁶ ibid, Gribble testimony, [E. 37 A, L. 2 - 7 ]  [Back]

⁹⁷ Transcript: [E. 28, L. 6-9]: Connall: "- August of '84 that you started taking records.  Now, am I incorrect in my analysis of your testimony?  Gribble: No, you're correct." During this time The Newport News Times published my article criticizing the DA's office. [E. 10]  [Back]

⁹⁸ Gribble quit days after she took all the patient ledger cards out of the office during the weekend she & her family moved into a new home.  Or. vs. McIver. [E. 30 B, L. 24 - 25; E. 30 C, L. 1 - 25 ]. Hammersly, Menzies, & Stapleton had copies of these records shortly after that.  [Back]

⁹⁹ [E. 181-182]  [Back]

¹⁰⁰ At the time, Oregon statutes mandated as minimum, seven jurors. Richard Hammersly was granted several motions to allow less than seven but more than five.  Robert Huckleberry & Bernice Barnett refused to acknowledge this, although the motions & orders are (or were) in the court clerk's file.  [Back]

¹⁰¹ [E. 197]  [Back]

¹⁰² [E. 134 D, L. 22-24]  [Back]

¹⁰³ [E. 131 C, L. 20 - 23 ]  [Back]

¹⁰⁴ [E. 131 D, L. 18]  [Back]

¹⁰⁵ Oregon vs. McIver, Lincoln Co. # 870940, 870941.  [Back]

¹⁰⁶ McCrone Associates, Report On Alleged Appointment Book Erasure. [E. 157 - 180]  [Back]

¹⁰⁷ As I didn't go to Dobson's home after Hutton vs. McIver was filed, and Betty Baggs' name is not listed for a 5: PM, or later, appointment in the 1983 book, my reference to her name in this exchange is clearly meaningless.  [Back]

¹⁰⁸ According to Dobson, the child was once taken to pediatrician, Steven Burns, M.D. because of temporary blindness.  She thought it was caused because the child was left unattended in a room with a faulty kerosene heater while the mother partied.  [Back]

¹⁰⁹ During a deposition before the post-conviction trial, attorney Wayne Mackesson showed Dobson the page she'd claimed she altered. She admitted the alteration wasn't there. (E. 126 - 127 ]  [Back]

¹¹⁰ Hearing officer Avakian's proposed order to OBPE. [E. 5 - 6]  [Back]

¹¹¹ Respondent's Brief; Appellate Court # A 73725. [E. 96 A]  [Back]

¹¹² Deposition given in Indiana vs. Brady # 25820. [E. 11-12]  [Back]

¹¹³ Hawkins case [E 181-182]  [Back]

¹¹⁴ [E. 125 D]  [Back]

¹¹⁵ Scientifically confirmable physical evidence the appointment time wasn't altered proves Hammersly lied to a grand jury to get the indictments for tampering with a witness & evidence.  He suborned perjury from Gribble and Dobson.  He received and converted documents Gribble stole from my office.  He allows these violations to go uncorrected.  This also applies to Ulys Stapleton.  [Back]

¹¹⁶ Detailed charges for Stapleton, Hammersly, & Menzies, in case statements.  [Back]

¹¹⁷ Menzies' note about mail cover. [E. 116 C ]  [Back]

¹¹⁸ Jim Huegli produced several during the 9/86 Hutton vs. McIver civil trial.  Gribble testified she gave them to him. [E. 31]  [Back]

¹¹⁹ Huegli also tampered with a witness in McIver vs. CBS, Marquis, et al.  Knowing I was going to depose Bradley Avakian, Huegli told him I had once "implicitly" threatened him. [E - 1 C, L. 145 - 147]  Huegli also made this baseless claim to enhance his case during Hutton vs. McIver & had asked Judge McMullen to have me searched.  [Back]

¹²⁰ [E 124 ]  [Back]

¹²¹ Judge Huckleberry [E. 42 CD] wrote that I had it in my possession "... during the entirety of the criminal court proceedings."  This is duplicitous.  I was in the position of a diabetic who misplaced his insulin.  I had confirmed my mail was being tampered with, & Gribble, Huegli, & Lincoln County prosecutors, had stolen some of my patient's records.  I had solid reason to suspect prosecutors wanted to get this particular piece of exculpatory evidence.  So I asked my wife to hide it (along with other material dealing with my patients).  In the clang and jar of criminal proceedings she forgot where she put it.  It's as simple as that.  [Back]

¹²² Marriage application, certificate & wedding license. [E. 74 D]  [Back]

¹²³ Lincoln Co. Dept. of Corrections interview sheet. [E. 93 B ]  [Back]

¹²⁴ Robert Hutton deposition; Hutton vs. McIver, Lincoln Co. # 851318, [E. 92 C, L. 21]  [Back]

¹²⁵ Marquis aff., McIver vs. CBS, et al, U.S. Dis. CT.# 92-632TC. ] E. 101 C, L. 23 - 25 ]  [Back]

¹²⁶ State vs. McIver, Lincoln Co. # 870940;87094. [E. 76, L. 16 - 19]  [Back]

¹²⁷ Dr. Robbins' notes .[ E.72 C ] - Oregon vs. McIver, Lincoln Co. 870940 - 41. [E. 76 C, L.11 - 19]  [Back]

¹²⁸ State Accident Insurance Fund.  [Back]

¹²⁹ Health insurance form. [E. 72 A ]  [Back]

¹³⁰ Ledger card. [E. 72 B ]  [Back]

¹³¹ 12/16/83 notes for Baggs' appointment. [E. 71 ]  [Back]

¹³² Hutton vs. McIver, Lincoln Co. # 85-1318. [E. 65 - 70]  [Back]

¹³³ Oregon vs. McIver, Lincoln Co. # 870940 - 41.  [Back]

¹³⁴ Hutton vs. McIver, Lincoln Co. # 851318. (4/15/86)  [Back]

¹³⁵ McIver vs. CBS, et al., U. S. Dist. CT. CV 92-06327 TC. [E 185 - 186]  [Back]

¹³⁶ Why would I change a time for a day she wasn't there?  It's verifiably certain she didn't have a 5: PM appointment.  So if she didn't go to the office that day, Marquis' case boiled down to claiming I changed an unwritten appointment time for an unkept appointment.  [Back]

¹³⁷ [E. 71; 72ABC]  [Back]

¹³⁸ Host Maureen O'Boyle & announcer Bill McGowan.  [Back]

¹³⁹ Case statements for McGowan, O'Boyle, & Palatnick in appendix.  [Back]

¹⁴⁰ The Supreme Court held this "purposeful avoidance of truth" constituted actual malice. Harte-Hanks,
492, US at 692.  [Back]

¹⁴¹ Palatnik affidavit; McIver vs. CBS. et al, U.S, rust. Ct. CV 92-06327 HO, [E. 107 B, L 11 - 17]  [Back]

¹⁴² In theory, US 9^th District Judge Michael Hogan, who dismissed her as a defendant, wouldn't have done so had he known she & Marquis, lied in their affidavits.  However, he didn't notify us he'd dismissed Marquis until 400 days after the fact.  He later dismissed the case for failure to prosecute after his clerk called me in New York at 5:15 PM Pacific time (8:15 PM Eastern) to say he wanted me to be in Eugene, OR. in 15 hours for oral argument when the court opened the next morning.  This is the same office that would sign for certified mail then scratch out the signature & refuse it.  [Back]

¹⁴³ McIver vs. CBS. et al, U.S, Dist Ct CV 92-06327 HO. [E. 84 BC, L. 518 0 535]  [Back]

¹⁴⁴ McIver vs. Oregon, Lincoln Co. # 904733  [Back]

¹⁴⁵ Dobson deposition, McIver vs. Oregon, Lincoln Co. # 904733. [E. 127 C, L. 16 ]  [Back]

¹⁴⁶ If Dobson had told Marquis it was the 4 PM time, she, by implication, further confirmed the fact Baggs' name was not written in the 5 PM slot.  Which means he not only had her falsely testify she erased Baggs' name; but, to further his claim the name was transposed from an after-hours appointment to a regular office time, he had her falsely testify she erased it from the 5 PM slot.  [Back]

¹⁴⁷ Marquis' Glitch: If Hutton admitted she kept either her actual 1 PM appointment, or the fictional 5 PM time, his case was blown: She'd have to acknowledge keeping her previously scheduled 1 PM time, or say that, eight days after her wedding, she went after hours to see a man she claimed threatened her, used her for sex, and who she was afraid of.  Marquis' Solution: Have her deny going.  If records showed she was there, have her deny them, too.  [Back]

¹⁴⁸ Anyway, 4: PM was a regular office hour.  Which makes meaningless the claim Dr. McIver wanted Baggs' name moved from there to another regular hours slot.  [Back]

¹⁴⁹ John Mills' Blue Cross insurance form. [E. 106 C ]  [Back]

¹⁵⁰ McIver vs. Oregon. Lincoln Co. # 90473; Mills' testimony. [E. 105 - 106 ]  [Back]

¹⁵¹ Memorandum, [E. 42 D - 43 A]: "If the appointment was at 4 or 5 PM; it appears that the petitioner would have been alone with Mrs. Hutton.. ."  This is a fabrication.  There's a world of difference between 5 and 4 PM office times.  Confirmable evidence shows Baggs' name was never written at 4 PM, just as it wasn't written at 5.  But if it had been, there would have been no more point in changing it than if it had been written at 10 AM or noon.  (What happened to her claims it was home sex not office sex &, besides, she wasn't in the office that day?)  [Back]

¹⁵² Hurley testimony; McIver vs. Oregon, Lincoln Co. # 904733; [E. 46 - 47 ]  [Back]

¹⁵³ Knowing the 5: PM time for 12/16/83 hadn't been altered, prosecutor Barnett asked Lt. Hurley to see if he could find Baggs name erased anywhere in the book.  He found it had been erased from the 6: PM time for 6/28/ 83 & was clearly written at 1 :PM.  But the name replacing it at 6:pm ("Dr. K.") wasn't in Dobson's writing.  Letter from Hurley to Steve Tolliver. [ E. 45 C ]  [Back]

¹⁵⁴ Barnett apparently wrote the opinion; Judge Huckleberry, the conclusion.  He signed off on all of it.  [Back]

¹⁵⁵ [E. 43 , L. 5 - 9 ]  [Back]

¹⁵⁶ [ E 44 D. L. 6 - 9 ]  [Back]

¹⁵⁷ Respondent's Brief; Appellate Court # A 73725. [E. 96 A]  [Back]

¹⁵⁸ Ibid; P. 5, "Not only did petitioner's expert "bac[k] off his own opinion ... but the state's expert, Lieu- tenant Hurley ... Testified he could not say one way or the other that an entry could have been erased without leaving any sign of alteration or erasure."  Kistler failed to disclose Hurley's unequivocal "No" response when asked if he could find any signs of "alteration, obliteration, or prior writing" in any of the time slots he examined.  [Back]

¹⁵⁹ [E 100 CD]  [Back]

¹⁶⁰ "I had no reason to believe then nor have I ever had any reason to disbelieve the veracity of the evidence presented by the State in that case." Marquis, McIver vs. Oregon, Lincoln Co. # 904733 [E. 100 D ]  [Back]

¹⁶¹ [E. 5 C, Par. 6 ]  [Back]

¹⁶² [E.3 B, L. 408 - E 3 C, L. 420 ]  [Back]

¹⁶³ This was the professed reason for the hearing.  [Back]

¹⁶⁴ Avakian report; [E. 5 D, P.. #3]  [Back]

¹⁶⁵ ibid, P. 4, Par. 4  [Back]

¹⁶⁶ ibid, P. 4, Par. 5  [Back]