Dear Friends of FTW:

The deck was stacked against Mike from the start in the recent sexual harassment ruling against From The Wilderness, Inc. Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) is an executive agency that has unabashedly acted as investigator, prosecutor, judge, and (attempted) collection agent against Michael C. Ruppert even though he is not even the named defendant in this case. In this follow-up letter, I want to point out just a few ways in which BOLI has abused Mike's rights and treated him unfairly in its Final Order.

To start with, the A.L.J. made numerous errors in interpreting the law. In sexual harassment cases, the act of "retaliation" is a question of whether a defendant improperly punishes a complainant on the job, as for example through demotions, pay cuts, altering job duties, or by firing the complainant. Following the alleged retaliatory act in this case - the job termination - the calculation of damages properly relates to the actual harm caused to the complainant (i.e., the financial harm and emotional distress intended to be caused by the accused employer). Acts or statements made by the defending employer following termination should have no bearing on the analysis of damages for emotional distress, particularly when the job no longer exists and the company is a defunct enterprise, as FTW most certainly is.

Mike, and every citizen, has the 1st Amendment right to speak in their own defense. Nevertheless, BOLI gives weight to completely irrelevant and inadmissible post-termination truthful statements made by Mike to defend himself against these allegations and to protect his reputation, all to conjure some intent by Mike to cause additional "emotional distress". Mike said nothing after the termination in any form or forum that can be fairly determined to constitute further "retaliation". Simply put, if the complainant felt damaged by Mike's post-termination statements, her proper remedy was a libel or slander suit. No such suit was ever filed because Mike's statements were neither libelous nor slanderous. They were true, as we have come to expect from Mike over many years.

At the hearing, Mike established a clear record that he fired the complainant for cause and no other reason. In complainant's three-month tenure she had become sexually involved with a key staff member, caused one physical altercation between two staff members that Mike wasn't involved in or near, and repeatedly disrupted the office environment and verbally assaulted yet another male employee more than once. She was seen in public displaying open affection towards Mike which made him uncomfortable and caused him to move away, yet a local Ashland resident who appeared and testified to these events was dismissed out of hand in the final ruling for the sole reason that he was friends with Mike and had written for FTW.

Additionally, even though hearsay evidence is authorized to be received in these contested hearings, the A.L.J. refused to admit into evidence affidavits by three witnesses for Mike because they were not present to testify under cross-examination. The A.L.J. further refused to allow Mike to call one of complainant's witnesses in Mike's case-in-chief because he wasn't on Mike's witness list (even though that witness was previously called by the complainant in BOLI's case-in-chief!). This same witness — who was a former employee of FTW's, who was engaged in a sexual relationship with the complainant, and who was allowed only to testify for the complainant — made statements that were acknowledged as discredited by the A.L.J., yet the A.L.J. received as credible the rest of that biased testimony as interpreted against Mike. With testimony this slanted, Mike didn't have a chance.

The complainant in this case was impeached (discredited) numerous times during the hearing — including by her own mother. Moreover, even though complainant's witnesses had been impeached by the evidence, the complainant's witness statements were given credibility in the ruling. Mike's testimony, on the other hand, was only credited by the A.L.J. to the extent it hurt him and not in its entirety or in context. The A.L.J. even included prior consistent statements of Mike in the context of determining an emotional damage award, yet he refused to include those statements in his evaluation of Mike's case. Talk about cherry-picking!

Even more egregious (and insulting) is the determination by the A.L.J. to discredit portions of Mike's sworn testimony simply because Mike HAD NOT made out of court statements on those issues. In any fair trial testimony under oath is the preferred method of gathering the facts, and out-of-court statements are only allowed if they fit an exception to the hearsay rule. In order to tarnish Mike, the A.L.J. stands that principle on its head to the point of absurdity.

Another example of legal error is the inclusion by the A.L.J of "evidence" of intimidation in determining emotional damages related to the fact that Mike kept a gun in his office, and the complainant once saw Mike pack a gun for his journey to retrieve the files for the Pat Tillman case. The A.L.J. acknowledges that Mike has had two verified attempts on his life, that he kept a gun in his office for the protection of himself and his staff, and that he is a firearms expert. NOWHERE in the record is there even the slightest allegation that Mike made any physical threats to the complainant or otherwise did anything inappropriate concerning his possession of firearms, yet the A.L.J. determined that Mike's "...handgun reasonably caused Complainant to fear retaliation by Ruppert". In this regard, my first question is, "What is reasonable about that?" This whole line of discussion by the A.L.J. in the Order is not only irrelevant but highly prejudicial and inflammatory against Mike. This is also another example of how the A.L.J. held completely irrelevant facts against Mike to enhance the determination of the emotional damages award.

On a personal note, I want people to understand the real importance of what we are doing here. I have been a student of "Peak Oil" and sustainability issues for the last four years, and I count myself among the numbers of people striving toward a sustainable future. I also used to help put sex offenders (juvenile and adult) in prison for their crimes; I have helped employers draft sexual harassment policies and deal with sexual harassment issues; I have a daughter, and a wife in the workforce; and, my own sister has been a victim of both sexual battery and sexual harassment. If I did not believe Mike, in his current appellate case, in his character, and absolutely know the imperative of the message he is trying to deliver, I would not have stepped forward. This is a righteous fight for the right reasons. Make no mistake, however. This will be an uphill battle even in the Court of Appeals. I am confident we can win, but we need your help. Please help us by donating to the FTW Legal Defense Fund.

Sincerely,
Wesley T. Miller
Attorney at Law
(Former Assistant District Attorney, Coos County, Oregon)

HOW TO DONATE

FTW needs funds to support this appeal. What is being defended here is the message in the film CoLLapse and in Mike's new book, "A Presidential Energy Policy". Please donate today!

International Wire Transfers — Please use the following routing numbers for donations from outside the U.S. Your bank should be able to provide conversion rates.

Account Name: From The Wilderness Legal Defense Fund
Bank: Wells Fargo
Routing Numbers: 121000248 — 3496610480

Checks can be made out and mailed to:

FTW Legal Defense Fund
c/o Rubiconworks
10736 Jefferson Bl. PMB 618
Culver City, CA 90232