Clatsop District Attorney Ron Brown Combined Bar Complaints 12-1-23

August 6, 2018
Josh A. Pickering
Clatsop County Jail
636 Duane Street
Astoria, OR 97103
Re: Subject: LDD 1801227

Ronald Brown (Josh A. Pickering)
Dear Josh Pickering:
The Oregon State Bar has received your complaint regarding Ronald Brown, the deputy district
attorney who has prosecuted you in a criminal matter. The Client Assistance Office (CAO) is responsible
for reviewing concerns regarding Oregon lawyers. Under Bar Rule of Procedure 2.5 and as resources
permit, CAO determines the manner and extent of review required to decide whether there is sufficient
evidence to support a reasonable belief that misconduct may have occurred warranting a referral to
Disciplinary Counsel. Misconduct means a violation of the rules of professional conduct and applicable
statutes that govern lawyer conduct in Oregon.
You contend that Mr. Brown has pursued charges which lack evidence, relies upon information
you deem unreliable and is not properly investigating the crimes you are alleged to have committed.
The Client Assistance Office is not the proper forum to challenge the criminal charges filed against you.
What you have provided is not sufficient evidence for us to reach any reasonable belief that Mr. Brown
may have committed misconduct.
Because we find no professional misconduct, we will take no further action on this matter. If you
disagree with this disposition, you may have the matter reviewed by General Counsel, provided we
receive your request for review in writing no later than August 27, 2018. The decision of General
Counsel is final.
Yours,
Linn D. Davis
Assistant General Counsel
Ext. 332
LDD/knc
No attachment
cc w/attach: Ronald Brown, Attorney at Law
Email submissions to: cao@osbar.org Use subject line: LDD 1801227

August 15, 2018
Ronald Brown
Attorney at Law
rbrown@co.clatsop.or.us

Dear Ronald Brown:
Attached is correspondence we have received from Josh Pickering in connection with his
concerns about your conduct. As you know, we dismissed his complaint because we did not find
that any ethical violation had occurred. However, in this most recent letter, Mr. Pickering
expresses his intent to appeal that decision.
Please review the attachment; if there is any additional information you wish to have us
consider regarding this matter, please provide it no later than September 5, 2018. Please
address your response to me.
This matter will then be submitted to General Counsel for further review. After General
Counsel has reviewed the matter, we will notify you and Mr. Pickering of the action taken.
Yours,
Linn D. Davis
Ext. 332
LDD/jmm
Attachment
cc w/o encl: Josh A. Pickering
03a1

September 12, 2018
Josh A. Pickering
Clatsop County Jail
636 Duane Street
Astoria, OR 97103

Dear Josh Pickering:
Ronald Brown did not elect to send further information in response to your request for
review of my decision. This matter is being submitted to General Counsel for review. We do not
require any further information at this point. Additional information submitted to us will be
included in the file for General Counsel review, but may not be copied to the parties. General
Counsel may seek further information as needed and will contact both parties in that event.
When the matter has been reviewed, we will notify you and Mr. Brown of the action
taken by General Counsel.
Yours,
Linn D. Davis
Ext. 332
LDD/jmm
cc: Ronald Brown, Attorney at Law
03e
November 27, 2023
Josh Pickering
Clatsop County Jail
636 Duane Street
Astoria, OR 97103

Ronald Brown (Josh Pickering)
Dear Mr. Pickering:
General Counsel’s Office has reviewed your complaint regarding the conduct of Ronald
Brown. At this time, I write to affirm the Client Assistance Office’s dismissal of your complaint.
The Client Assistance Office reviews inquiries about attorney conduct. The Client
Assistance Office must determine whether the attorney conduct described and the evidence
presented support a reasonable belief that ethical misconduct has occurred within the meaning
of the rules that govern attorneys. When General Counsel’s Office receives an appeal, our review
applies the same standard.
In this instance, I do not find sufficient evidence of ethical misconduct to warrant further
investigation by disciplinary counsel. Further, I agree with the reasoning set forth in the Client
Assistance Office’s letter dismissing this complaint.
For these reasons, I affirm the dismissal of this complaint. The Oregon State Bar’s file
concerning your complaint is now closed.
Very truly yours,
Amber Hollister
General Counsel
cc: Ronald Brown, Attorney at Law (rbrown@co.clatsop.or.us)

Email submissions to: gc@osbar.org Use subject line: LDD 1801227
September 27, 2016
Iain T. Noll
#15863934
Warner Creek Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 1500
Lakeview, OR 97630
Re: Subject: DPA 1601470

Ronald Brown (Iain T. Noll)
Dear Mr. Noll:
The Oregon State Bar (Bar) has received your complaint regarding Ronald Brown.
The Client Assistance Office (CAO) is responsible for reviewing concerns regarding Oregon
lawyers. Under Bar Rule of Procedure 2.5 and as resources permit, CAO determines the manner
and extent of review required to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support a
reasonable belief that misconduct may have occurred warranting a referral to Disciplinary
Counsel’s Office. Misconduct means a violation of the rules of professional conduct and
applicable statutes that govern lawyer conduct in Oregon.
You have expressed concern regarding Mr. Brown’s role in the plea agreement you
accepted, which you feel exceeded the statutory maximum sentence and violated ORS 137.330
by requiring you to pay for the costs of your incarceration in the county jail. Mr. Brown was the
prosecuting attorney. You were represented by Des Connall.
We conclude that there is no sufficient basis to warrant a referral to Disciplinary Counsel’s
Office for further review. Your sentence, and the attendant agreement in advance to pay for the
costs of your incarceration, were the result of a negotiated plea deal as to multiple counts. Each
count may have led to a statutory maximum sentence being imposed consecutively. We do not
find any evidence that Mr. Brown’s conduct with regard to the negotiation of your plea deal, in
his role as prosecuting attorney, implicates any of Oregon’s Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC)
regulating lawyers practicing in Oregon. This includes RPC 3.8 pertaining to prosecutors in
particular.
Because we find no professional misconduct, we will take no further action on this matter.
If you disagree with this disposition, you may have the matter reviewed by General Counsel,
Iain T. Noll
Page 2
provided we receive your request for review in writing no later than October 18, 2016. The
decision of General Counsel is final.
Sincerely,
Daniel P. Atkinson
Ext. 336
DPA/jmm
cc w/attach: Ronald Brown, Attorney at Law
02h
Email submissions to: cao@osbar.org Use subject line: DPA 1601470

Karen Graham
From: cao@osbar.org
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 3:41 PM
To: faith_1239@gmail.com
Cc: OSB Client Assistance Office
Subject: CAO Attorney Complaint
Attachments: 1DA95338-7423-4266-9ABA-E4836BB53CE0.png; DDB57816-
EA0F-4977-986F-347235B81B67.jpeg; 01C66F3F-2D0F-4D04-991C-B084841836C2.png
Oregon State Bar
11/22/2021 3:41:21 PM To: Kelsey M Moreland FTA Knox
Following is a record of your complaint filed with the Oregon State Bar.
Please retain this for your records.
Name and Address of COMPLAINANT
Kelsey M Moreland FTA Knox

1 Jefferson parkway unit 66
Lake Oswego , Or 97035
Primary Phone: 503801030
Secondary Phone:
Email: faith_1239@gmail.com
Name and Address of ATTORNEY
Mr Ronald Brown
749 commercial P.O. Box 149
Astoria , Or 97035
Secondary Phone:
COMPLAINT
Philip Whitsett Was alleged by Debbie Norman and Kelsey Knox to have
been improper and abusing I Sanders. Along with possibly the father
and mother allowing it to go car and leaving alone with he was
14 at the time. To DHS and was reported to seaside detective Steve Barnett
and his report thrown out by Ron Brown in 2011 dispite medical reports of
bleeding and swelling the foster mom explained to dhs was from a bubble bath
and UTI however the foster mom after I Kelsey took reports of my daughter
1
staff infection on her hands along with her odd statements during visits like “I’m
painting the milky” when painting the inside of a dinosaurs legs and to Debbie
she said “ pulls on my butt at night” and DHS let it go and Ron Brown
threw it out as well when I called his office to beg him to allow a investigation he
was the deputy DA at the time. I was told I could be charged with harassment if
I continued to press these issues. My brother Frank Sanders after adoption
went and reported this to DHS and they said they knew and that’s there’s not
enough evidence to take it to court. Which obviously there still is to this day
including Park Whitsetts arrest in 2019 for rape and sex abuse. had no
emotion issues when taken into care and was removed due to homelessness.
She began to have bed wetting, nail biting to the point she got a staff infection
on her thumb which Ms Whitsett refused to take her to her primary care and
once reported to the sheriffs department by myself sheriffs did go out there after
I made my reports on suspected sexual abuse and the staff infection on her
hand which the foster parents refused to treat and DHS refused to do anything
about. The foster mother did take her to the emergency room but not her
primary care switched her primary care doctor. After obtaining records from her
new primary care doctor I discovered that she was bleeding from her general
area it was swollen and had lacerations, the foster mother again reported this to
DHS as that she had a urinary tract infection however the reports at the doctors
office that she took her to showed no he were Ineri tract infection was present,
and the foster mother figured it was the type of soap she was using so she said
she would just try to stop giving her bubble bath instead. This was obviously a
result of reaping my daughter! Ron Brown including Steve Barnett tried
to twist it into I was the one that was abusing my daughter obviously not she
was supervised and the only reason she was removed was because I was
homeless after leaving a domestically violent marriage. And when I was held
illegally for questioning and my daughter who is potty trained I was refused to
let her go to the bathroom and when I told her go to the crisis worker Sharon
Beatty and have her take you to the restroom she did however DHS took her
and said that I abandon her. Obviously did not. Ron Brown refused to
investigate that and refused to investigate my allegations on the Whitsett family
including not only my allegations but Debbie Norman my mother-in-law and my
brother Frank Sanders. I faced false charges and excepted a false plea-bargain
because I was told if I did not take the plea bargain Whitsett‘s would be
adopting my daughter. So I excepted charges that I did not do and did time
which I did not deserve in order to save my daughter from being raped and
molested and abused including being starved by Miss Whitsett and being told
that she was fat giving other kids chocolate milk and cupcakes and giving my
daughter salad and water she was 3 1/2! Ron Brown knew this information and
chose not to do anything and continues to choose to not do anything. He even
went so far as to throw out Steve Burnett support he sent in. Brown brown
chose to allow evidence to be suppressed in my case including a video tape
from the B&B which showed that the child was more than 6 feet ahead of me on
a bike when she was pulled off by a man and I was tackled from behind at 7 1/2
months pregnant. I obviously wasn’t a threat and was supervising a child who
had no parental guardian! When I was taken I wasn’t under arrest nor was there
a warrant I was taken against my will forcefully cuff to a bed had my bodily
fluids extracted without a warrant including blood, noted to be of taken to a
mental facility per police documents but held in a holding tank in Seaside Police
2
Department and not even being booked into the Astoria jail until 14 days after
they had me in their possession. The charge that originally was first was
harassment upon the nurses after they administered drugs I did not consent to
buy injection and refusing me food. Also the drugs altered my mental state yet
Ron Brown use the evidence to twist my case and make me look crazy and
force me to take a plea bargain or risk my daughter continuing to be raped by
the Whitsett family. I’ll show should know at the jail I was rejected medical care
and I had pre-clampsia/hellp I also had E. coli which altered my state of mind,
yet even after it was discovered when it was transferred to Oregon State
Hospital and I was induced seven weeks early. Ron Brown still chose to use
evaluation‘s during that time as evidence in my case even though I was
rejected medical care and I was sad to have behavioral issues including several
seizures I had while the jail staff laughed at me. They also refused to let me
shower and didn’t take my picture until not letting me shower for 2 1/2 weeks
and not turning off the light for 2 1/2 weeks either not allowing me to sleep or
offer me prenatal care. Also at the time I was pregnant by Jeremy Marhon who
was a informant four Ron brown, was abusive to me and also stopped me the
police would not help me in anyway and they said that he was allowed to stock
me because I was carrying his child. Ron Brown knew this and protected him
and let him be above the law even though he was facing his third strike in
California and still to my knowledge has a non-extraditable warrant out and was
facing kidnapping himself of three adults and a loaded shotgun with two shells
and he was a felon. When I began dating him I knew none of this information,
and when I found out this information including that he was a informant trying to
get free of his charges I asked him to have nothing to do with me and he would
not leave me alone including sitting in a parking lot for hours outside my house
stocking and harassing my mother and myself as well as my friends.
ATTACHMENTS
1DA95338-7423-4266-9ABA-E4836BB53CE0.png
DDB57816-EA0F-4977-986F-347235B81B67.jpeg
01C66F3F-2D0F-4D04-991C-B084841836C2.png
Oregon State Bar | 16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road | Tigard, Oregon 97224
3
9:31 5G HD
X image_6483441.JPG •••
***********
7/1«11
K o
* . 0
** tt (AM
tt T - H
wmi HM««i CMMotfi »«hO(iliiiirriHor oMffH4

^
.PWftAAd
**
>
• *#
Ar# G
•!WffiWlSl
r»mf ft4 to IMJI » + « 7 cmty
* *** *
CHi o
' ** MW*
<
** *•»* 555
KrtMt * HA I " 7 ( AM 17/1«11
* *
O
. ,. *
**
i «
oi Autu #
*
H:I S rA4.si MTO#oucc ore ctmext STAY
*
v|utfw
*
7fm> 4 Art 0
**
Plot Jlln iDwimiHf .
Victim
1 5 “”
w * *
E
P
11-3670 Seaside PD
7 /18/2011 8: 49:01 AM Incident Report
Business (Involvement)
Commercial/Business
Business Name
-
PSH ER - Dr Opie
Address City/State/Zip
9:30
X image 123986672.J...
Karen Graham
From: OSB Client Assistance Office
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2021 5:04 PM
Subject: SMY 2101768 Brown (Moreland)
Attachments: 2021 1123 1. Original Inquiry.pdf; 2021 1123 2. Ex 1 1DA95338-7423-4266-9ABA-
E4836BB53CE0.png; 2021 1123 3. Ex 2 DDB57816-EA0F-4977-986F-347235B81B67.jpeg;
2021 1123 4. Ex 3 01C66F3F-2D0F-4D04-991C-B084841836C2.png
Subject: SMY 2101768

Ronald Brown (Kelsey Moreland)
Dear Kelsey Moreland:
The Oregon State Bar has received your complaint regarding Ronald Brown, the Clatsop County
District Attorney. The Client Assistance Office (CAO) is responsible for reviewing concerns regarding
Oregon lawyers. Under Bar Rule of Procedure 2.5 and as resources permit, CAO determines the
manner and extent of review required to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to support a
reasonable belief that misconduct may have occurred warranting a referral to Disciplinary Counsel.
Misconduct means a violation of the rules of professional conduct and applicable statutes that govern
lawyer conduct in Oregon.
You complain about Mr. Brown’s handling of a criminal matter in which you were the defendant and
accepted a plea agreement (though you now deny the allegations), as well as what you perceive as his
failure to take appropriate action regarding concerns you raised about the treatment of your
daughter by her care providers. We conclude that there is no basis to warrant a referral to
Disciplinary Counsel’s Office for further review.
We lack any evidence to support that Mr. Brown pursued charges against you that he knew to be
unsupported by probable cause. In addition, Mr. Brown’s decision not to take certain actions with
respect to your allegations of abuse by your daughter’s foster parents do not implicate our rules. It
appears from the information you provided that Mr. Brown and/or others involved in the matter
determined that they did not have sufficient evidence to support the actions you sought. Such
prosecutorial discretion is not within our authority to review.
receive your request for review in writing no later than January 20, 2022. The decision of General
Counsel is final.
Respectfully,
Sarra Yamin (she/her/hers)

Assistant General Counsel and CAO Attorney
OSB 503‐431‐6366
cao@osbar.org
1
BCC’d: Ronald Brown
Email Submissions to cao@osbar.org. Use subject line SMY 2101768
Oregon State Bar • 16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road • PO Box 231935 • Tigard, OR 97281‐1935 • www.osbar.org
Please note: Your email communication may be subject to public disclosure. Written communications to or from the Oregon State Bar are public
records that, with limited exceptions, must be made available to anyone upon request in accordance with Oregon's public records laws.
2
"lWWIMil' % Wl"llllillilliMillllll
Oregon State Bar

02 1 P $ 000.73°
0000942264 JAN 05 2022
16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 97281
P.O. Box 231935
Tigard, Oregon 97281-1935
PIECE E
JAN 1 2 2022 Kelsey M. Moreland
1 Jefferson Parkway, Unit 66
OREGON STATE BAR Lake Oswego, OR 97035
CLIENT ASSISTANCE OFFICE
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL NIXIE 971 FE 1 0 0 0 1/1 0/ 2 2
NOT DELIVERABLE
RET URN
TO S E N D E R
A n n p =r c; c: p n
i
i
JNASTS
' TO F OR W ARD i
?
U TF set 9 7 2 S1 1 9 S 5 5 5 * 1 5 7 9- 0 5 8 2 0-1 0- 2 1 i
?7 2 S l i l S? 5 111
•
!!!11!•|«!111•!I!•!•111i! jI!!i !• > !ujI,i!njI jJ !i11!;i!;11 > ;!:111,11;,|u,111
i > » i i 11 i
I I t ,1,1
i ;;
i
i
September 10, 2018
Larry D. Leach
Clatsop County Jail
636 Duane Street
Astoria, OR 97103
Re: Joshua Marquis CAO File No. LDD 1801324

Ronald Brown CAO File No. LDD 1801325
Kristopher Kaino CAO File No. LDD 1801388
Larry D. Leach, Complainant
Dear Larry Leach:
The Oregon State Bar Client Assistance Office (CAO) has received your correspondence
expressing concerns about the conduct of lawyers Joshua Marquis, Ronald Brown and
Kristopher Kaino. The CAO is responsible for reviewing concerns regarding Oregon lawyers.
Under Oregon State Bar Rule of Procedure 2.5 and as resources permit, CAO determines the
manner and extent of review required to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to support
a reasonable belief that lawyer misconduct may have occurred warranting a referral to Oregon
State Bar Disciplinary Counsel. Misconduct means a violation of the rules of professional
conduct and applicable statutes that govern lawyer conduct in Oregon.
We have reviewed all the relevant materials submitted in connection with your
complaint. We conclude that there is no sufficient basis to warrant a referral to Disciplinary
Counsel.
Mr. Marquis is the District Attorney for Clatsop County. Mr. Brown is one of Mr.
Marquis’ Deputy District Attorneys. You allege that Mr. Marquis and Mr. Brown have
improperly publicized the Clatsop County criminal matter in which you are the defendant. You
have not called our attention to any specific statement by Mr. Marquis or Mr. Brown.
Our Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 3.6(a) prohibits a lawyer participating in a
matter from making an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should
know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial
likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter. However, RPC
3.6(a) notwithstanding, RPC 3.6(b) permits a lawyer to provide certain basic information to the
press.
Larry D. Leach
Page 2
We lack any information sufficient to support a belief that Mr. Marquis or Mr. Brown
have violated RPC 3.6(b). To the extent I was able to find any news coverage in your matter, the
information included was within the scope of the exception at RPC 3.6(b) for basic information
regarding your matter.
Mr. Kaino was appointed to represent you in the Clatsop County criminal law matter.
You complain that although Mr. Kaino communicates with you about the matter, he does not
follow your directions concerning your defense.
RPC 1.2(a) requires a lawyer to consult with you about the means for pursuing your
interests. A few decisions are reserved to you alone, such as the decision whether to plead
guilty or to testify. However, Mr. Kaino is expected to exercise his professional judgment
regarding what evidence to pursue and what motions to make. We could not find evidence to
support a belief that Mr. Kaino has failed to consult with you. Your disagreement with his
judgment is not sufficient to support a belief that he has failed to exercise professional
judgment.
If your relationship with Mr. Kaino has completely broken down, or you no longer trust
his representation, you may wish to request that he withdraw from representing you. There
are risks associated with taking this action, and you will should discuss the risks with your
lawyer. If, after discussion, you wish to seek new counsel, you can ask your lawyer to assist.
Because we find no professional misconduct, we will take no further action on this
matter. If you disagree with this disposition, you may have the matter reviewed by General
Counsel, provided we receive your request for review in writing no later than October 1, 2018.
The decision of General Counsel is final.
Yours,
Linn D. Davis
Ext. 332
LDD/jmm
No enclosure
cc w/attach: Joshua Marquis, Attorney at Law
Ronald Brown, Attorney at Law
Kristopher Kaino, Attorney at Law
02h

Date Notes
< V~v-
^ \ ' s,
0 p c
Attorney Complainant
Ronald Brown 503 325-8581

Attorney at Law Kirk W. Fraser
Clatsop County DA's Office 503 728-4894
350 NE 6th
'
. V
749 Commercial
P. O. Box 149 Clatskanie, OR 97016
Astoria. OR .971na
Attorney Representing Above:

To see additional material included with this file, refer to
0-1
/
BOX #
~
Re: vKrr^ iin *•£ nful [ d
~
H/ « UlM |
» 7 /72^
/3<*M
§ w!
^
—^
«j
-Aascri ,tcruc
\
Description:
Sfafc V. Mli'l 1 CO '5
vSlcd^- N/ Kdif l / ts/ of co SS a
"
-IIS
& '
M IS Sa V jisti
aSHlSKS
li
$
Hr E
pp
Si® • i
mm p?
i ;
$
i£l 1
.
¥
rV
;i r
T |pp 111 i Jlf ! S
Bis - v- v '
'
i
- i
} • V W m
m U P
f . n W! I
•
:
-
!
.
I
s
®
nm
V . 11 :
15 V BBSS
1 a
I
m
I; .4? I
i
:
r
-7 lC
kfl
iCE 1
4
IIS
l.Z
»
a
£
m sim
I
V
-mm
ffl
#
m
f
< m
6:
D *!48 is; ';
tli ii£i
; 7
I SI !
liyli
fi
s
:l
i
¥
'
if '
J |
i
s ft
S -1i 1 mA
m
-M
.
EL
sc
a:
ssr
IS ;•
- ..
!
m: .
tg 2££ - :? S i
•
•
•
'
I.
i’
ii
:
- .:!
•
Inquiry Page 1 of 8
Inquiry Id:
'WW.SWiV.'
WW
^MSWA’-'
Complainant Information
Complainant Id : Name : Address :
26 - 589 - 19 Fraser, Kirk W . Clatskanie OR,
Accused Information
Accused Id :
Name :
Firm Size : | 0
Related Cases : imrwrttf

Inquiry Information
File Type : Contact
Issue : Dishonesty & misrepresentation Source : Email

Type of Matter : Criminal OSB Attorney : Scott I'lUl i ill
Contact Type : Third Party Recipient : Karen Graham

Notes :
From : Overcomer Man [ mailto : overcomer. man @ gmail .com ]
Sent : Sunday, June 01, 2008 2: 18 PM
To : OSB Information
Subject : Emergency : Flow to get innocent out of jail ?
Hi,
I just received a report of an innocent man in jail being beaten by his guards in Astoria. The DA lied to the jury,
which I personally witnessed myself . Is there any law against such misconduct ? How can the effects of such
misconduct be rapidly reversed to prevent further beatings ?
Sincerely,
Kirk W. Fraser
Clatskanie, OR
Dear Mr. Fraser,
Your e - mail was forwarded to me for a response. You would like to know what can be done to get the alleged
.
misconduct of a prosecutor reversed rapidly to stop continuing abuse You also want to know if it is misconduct
for a prosecutor to lie.
The bar cannot give you legal advice . We recommend you call the bar ' s lawyer referral service for help finding a
lawyer who might be able to assist you. You may reach the referral service at 503.684. 3763.
It is misconduct for a prosecutor to lie. You may present your complaint and supporting evidence to the bar at
the address noted below . You may also find a complaint form and the rules that govern lawyer conduct on our
website at www . osbar . org . I hope that this information is helpful.
Sincerely,
6/ 3/ 08 :
Dear Mr , Fraser,
Certified transcripts are preferred. However, audio CD' s are acceptable if in FTR form ( most courts use FTR) and
you can provide time stamps for the relevant statements. Providing just a few examples to support your
complaint should be sufficient . However, disbarment is not my decision to make . Please remember that closing
http://osb 10/case/Inquiry . aspx?key=08-01321 & print=yes 6/ 18/2008

Inquiry Page 2 of 8
statements are given wide latitude for prosecutors and defense lawyers to offer opinions and we expect that the
judge or opposing attorney would file complaints if either the prosecutor or the defense lawyer crossed any
lines.
Sincerely,
Scott A. Morrill
Client Assistance Office
Oregon State Bar
16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road
P. O . Box 231935
Tigard, OR 97281- 1935
503.431. 6344
Fax : 503.684.1366
Original Message
.
From : Overcomer Man [ mailto : overcomer. man @ gmail com ]
Sent : Tuesday, June 03, 2008 5 : 30 AM
To : Scott Morrill
Subject : Re: Emergency : How to get innocent out of jail
Dear Mr. Morrill,
Thank you much for your reply . I will submit complaint and evidence as you suggest . I purchased a record of
the trial from Clatsop County which should arrive here in a couple of days . Unfortunately it ' s only available in
audio — they don' t offer written transcripts. My current plan is to analyse every statement to see if it ' s an
imagined scenario or opinion presented without identification as such, to mislead the jury into thinking it ' s fact.
This will require my transcription of a lot of the DA ' s words. I could also record the offending words in audio
format . I can also supply a copy of the entire trial audio in . mp 3 format . Or if necessary I can pay for the
county to send you an official copy . What would be the acceptable forms of evidence ?
Also, the trial covers several days and I only attended the final summary and closing statements where I heard
approximately 1/ 3 imagined scenarios presented as fact, 1/ 3 opinions some presented as fact and some
correctly identified, and 1/ 3 facts from the DA . I don ' t know what is on the other days yet. How many of such
lies do you need for a successful disbarring ? If the final day has a sufficient number, I could work on that day
first to get the complaint started then send other day ' s lies as they are discovered and documented.
Sincerely ,
Kirk Fraser
350 NE 6 th
Clatskanie, OR 97016
http://osb 10/case/Inquiry .aspx?key =08-01321& print=yes 6/18/2008

Inquiry Page 3 of 8
503- 728- 4894

overcomer . man @ gmaii . com
Dear Mr . Fraser,
I understand that you are trying to be careful in presenting your complaint. However, I do not have enough
information to give you a preliminary opinion, nor do we do that in most cases. I can tell you that our rules
prohibit a lawyer from lying to the court. If you believe that the prosecutor iied to the court you should file a
complaint with our office supported by any relevant evidence you have. The bar will decide whether and how in -
depth to investigate. Complaints must be in writing and mailed by regular mail . Please remember that the bar
does not have jurisdiction over judges. Also, nothing the bar does will have any bearing on the underlying
criminal matter . The defendant will have to consult with an attorney to explore what options may be available.
I hope that this is helpful.
Sincerely,
Scott A . Morrill
Oregon State Bar
.
P . O Box 231935
Tigard, OR 97281- 1935
503.431. 6344
Fax : 503.684.1366
Original Message
From : Overcomer Man [ mailto : overcomer. man @ gmail. com ]
Sent : Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11: 06 PM
To: Scott Morrill
Subject : Re : Emergency : How to get innocent out of jail
Dear Mr. Morrill,
Here’ s my Misconduct Report on the first day of court, not as an official submission yet, just to get your opinion
on if I' m going in a right direction the Bar would probably decide to investigate or prosecute. Also, if the
complaint is successful, at what point would the innocent be released ? Or would there still be need for an appeal
which I hear takes a year ? Thank you.
Expand your browser to full screen to reduce word wrap on the report .
Sincerely,
http://osbl 0/case/Inquiry . aspx?key=08-0132 l & print=yes 6/ 18/2008

Inquiry Page 4 of 8
Kirk Fraser
Preliminary Report of Misconduct
Clatsop County DA Ron Brown and
Circuit Court Judge Cindee Matyas
Case 06 - 1238 State v. Kelly
Compiled by Kirk W . Fraser
The most obvious lies were the DA ' s imagined scenarios and opinions not identified in any way as what if
possibilities to the jury but presented or implied as facts. Of course direct name calling such as when he called
Tom "evil " with only circumstantial evidence are also lies. In addition to lies this report will endeavor to
document improper court procedures where decisions were based on opinions with absence of proof. Note this
report contains comments on time indexed statements which appear to be misconduct, not the entire
statements which may also cover other topics.
Date May 20, 2008
9 : 40 : 37 AM - 9 : 42 : 48 AM Judge
9 : 49: 50 AM - 9 : 49 : 53 AM Defense
Objection to cumulative nature of several witnesses on tape and in person repeating ' s statements.
9 : 49 : 56 AM - 9 : 55 : 40 AM Prosecutor
DA simply says he doesn ' t believe the evidence is cumulative ( objection on the number of times of repetition )
with no support . DA says suggestiveness by questioner can be detrimental to accuracy but says that makes it
important to know what was said in each instance.
Misconduct : Prosecutor denies cumulative argument and refuses to curb repetition .
9 : 55 : 45 AM - 9 : 58 : 09 AM Defense
Reiterates cumulative argument supporting with precedent by Judge Nelson not allowing statement after
statement on what someone said.
9 : 58: 09 AM - 10 : 02 : 38 AM Judge
Impression statements were not cumulative, inclined to allow them.
Misconduct : Judge also does not specify any objective standard for cumulative, just her opinion. Improper court
procedure, not due process.
10 : 02 : 38 AM - 10 : 02 : 40 AM Prosecutor, Judge, Defense
10 : 02 : 40 AM - 10:08 : 04 AM Defense
10 : 08 : 09 AM - 10 : 09 : 12 AM Prosecutor
10:09:14 AM - 10:10:35 AM Defense
http ://osbl 0/case/Inquiry . aspx ?key =08 -01321 & print= yes 6/18/2008
Inquiry Page 5 of 8
10 : 10 : 35 AM - 10 : 12 : 06 AM Judge
10 : 12 : 08 AM - 10 : 13 : 33 AM Defense
10 : 13 : 33 AM - 10 : 14 : 50 AM Judge
10 : 14 : 50 AM - 10 : 15 : 10 AM Defense
10 : 15 : 12 AM - 10 : 18 : 05 AM Prosecutor
10 : 18 : 05 AM - 10 : 27 : 30 AM Defense & Judge
10 : 27 : 31 AM - 10 : 18 : 05 AM Prosecutor
10 : 18 : 05 AM - 10 : 46 : 06 AM Defense & Judge & Prosecutor & Break Time
11: 15 : 33 AM - 12 : 10 : 48 AM Jury Interviews & Break Time
1: 29 : 59 PM - 4 : 51: 24 PM Jury Instructions & Interviews & Break Time
4 : 51: 24 PM - 5 : 08 : 08 PM Prosecutor
4 : 51: 29 PM Kelly is the victim in this case.
Misconduct : opinion as fact, not alleged victim.
4 : 54 : 34 PM Crimes occurred on Cedar Street .
Misconduct : opinion as fact, not alleged crimes.
4 : 55 : 13 PM Well if grandma was gone, got sexually abused .
Misconduct : lie to jury, imagined scenario
4 : 55 : 31 PM The defendant would sexually abuse down in the basement generally
Misconduct: lie to jury, imagined scenario, and cumulative repeat
4 : 55 : 49 PM Defendant would preoccupy Ireland with video games when sexually abusing his sister
Misconduct : lie to jury, imagined scenario, and cumulative repeat
4 : 56 : 39 PM She never puts any of those movies in herself, the defendant would show her those movies
Misconduct : lie to jury, imagined scenario
4 : 56 : 46 PM He would sit there and watch pornographic movies with his granddaughter to desensitize a child
ldisr.ondiJct.L lie to jury, expanding on imagined scenario, and cumulative repeat
4:57:04 PM So that ' s what the defendant did, he would show pornographic movies
4 : 57 : 09 PM And eventually that led to him sexually abusing her
4: 57: 53 PM The defendant would commit sodomy, lick her vagina, cause her to have oral sex with him
http://osb 10/case/Inquiry . aspx?key=0 8 -01321& print=yes 6/18/2008

Inquiry Page 6 of 8
Misconduct : lies to jury, imagined crimes and scenarios
4 : 58 : 10 PM He would get whisker burns on the inside of her legs
Misconduct : lie to jury, imagined scenario, and medically not possible without reverse burn
4 : 58 : 21 PM Thought reaction to wetting the bed ... but they were actually whisker burns
Misconduct : lie to jury, opinion not fact
4 : 58 : 34 PM He would rub his penis on her vagina, he actually tried to enter her and have intercourse
Misconduct : lie to jury, expanding on imagined scenario, opinion not fact, no medical damage
4 : 58 : 50 PM He had "him " suck his penis, he had "him" stroke his penis, until he eventually ejaculated
Misconduct : lie to jury, imagined scenario, opinion not fact, "him" possible Freudian Slip !
4 : 58 : 56 PM "The Good Stuff " is disparaged as a term for semen
Misconduct: misleads jury to view "the good stuff" as worse than term " semen"
( NAPA ads use "the good stuff " term on TV )
4 : 59 : 35 PM He would touch her breasts
Misconduct: lie to jury, imagined scenario, opinion not fact
5:00: 04 PM He would actually put cushion on ground and abuse her until he finally ejaculated
Misconduct : lie to jury , imagined scenario, opinion not actual fact
5 : 01: 48 PM Crime lab said his semen was on 3 of those cushions, corroborating what ' s going to say
Misconduct: Semen could be 25 years old — imagined scenario, corroboration opinion not fact
5 :02:01 PM The defendant told her not to tell anybody and if she did the police would really hurt him bad.
Misconduct : mislead jury, no evidence, no specific topic, imagined scenario
5 :02: 21 PM He convinced her that she was a willing co - participant in this and she had guilt feelings about it
Misconduct : mislead jury, no evidence other than frequently lying witness, imagined scenario
5 : 02: 32 PM She kept this inside from 2002 until 2006
Misconduct : lie to jury with no evidence, imagined scenario
c&_r^ had he attempted actual intercourse there might have been evidenee
-
Misconduct : lie to jury, contradicts claim at 4: 58: 34 of intercourse attempt .
5 : 07 : 24 PM Does Kelly have any kind of motive to lie in open court to get her grandfather in trouble ?
Answer : Yes, bonding with Anne Reeves who had been abused, to reduce family instability
Misconduct : mislead jury into prejudice that has no such motive.
5 : 07 : 36 PM Look fomwhether Anne Reeves have any kind of motive to try to get the defendant in trouble.
http://osbl 0/case/Inquiry.aspx?key =08-01321& print=yes 6/18/2008

Inquiry Page 7 of 8
Answer : Yes, to stabilize relation with Tom Jr., vicarious punishment on her abuser, and $ .
Misconduct : mislead jury into prejudice that Anne Reeves has no such motive.
5 : 08 : 10 PM - 5 : 09 : 35 PM Judge
On 6/ 3/08, Scott Morrill wrote:

Dear Mr. Fraser,
Certified transcripts are preferred. However, audio CD ' s are acceptable if in FTR form ( most courts use FTR ) and
you can provide time stamps for the relevant statements. Providing just a few examples to support your
complaint should be sufficient . However, disbarment is not my decision to make. Please remember that closing
statements are given wide latitude for prosecutors and defense lawyers to offer opinions and we expect that the
judge or opposing attorney would file complaints if either the prosecutor or the defense lawyer crossed any
lines.
Sincerely,
Scott A . Morrill
Oregon State Bar
P.O. Box 231935
Tigard, OR 97281- 1935
503.431. 6344
Fax : 503.684.1366
Dear Mr. Fraser,
Copies of proceedings using FTR should be sufficient for our initial evaluation.
Judge concerns should be presented to the Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability at PO Box 1130,
Beaverton, OR 97075 - 1130.
Whether lying to the court is a crime is not a question the bar can answer . Maybe a prosecutor in another
county can help you with that one or a lawyer in private practice may be able to help.
I hope that this information is helpful.
Sincerely,
Scott A . Morrill
Oregon State Bar
.
P.O Box 231935
http: //osbl 0/case/Inquiry .aspx?key =08-01321& print=yes 6/18/2008

Inquiry Page 8 of 8
Tigard, OR 97281- 1935
503.431. 6344
Fax : 503.684.1366
Original Message
.
From : Overcomer Man [ mailto : overcomer. man @ gmail com ]
Sent : Thursday, June 12, 2008 1: 07 PM
To : Scott Morrill
Subject : Re : Emergency : How to get innocent out of jail
Dear Mr. Morrill,
Thanks for your helpful information. I realise the Bar is somewhat intertwined with the Oregon Revised Statutes
regarding Attorneys and I once believed a law enforcement officer could be prosecuted for failure to uphold the
law . Is a DA lying in court a crime in addition to a Bar rule violation ? I would like to upon finishing my report file
police charges on the DA for both failure to uphold the law and lying in court, in addition to sending it to you.
Also, you mentioned the Bar doesn' t have jurisdiction over judges. Who does and how may I learn more and
contact them ?
Finally, since you wrote in your prior email that FTR CDs are acceptable, does that include copies I made using
the FTR player software or must I spend another $ 60 to get official recordings to send you? Thanks.
Sincerely,
Kirk Fraser
Disposition Information
Disposition : INF Appeal Date 1
1
Disposition Summary : IP Sent to GC Date
Disposition Date : 06 / 02/ 2008 GC Decision Date
GC Decision
Re - Open Date :
Re - Close Date
Re - Disposition
Disposition Notes :
http://osb10/case/Inquiry .aspx?key=08-01321& print=yes 6/18/2008

Page 1 of 1
Scott Morrill
From: Overcomer Man [ overcomer . man@ gmail . com]

Sent: Thursday , June 26, 2008 7: 35 AM
To : Scott Morrill
Subject: Request for review in writing
Mr . Morrill ,
Your posted letter of reply dated June 24, 2008 helped inspire this website entry :
http://www. americansolutions.com/SolutionsLab/Solution.aspx7GukNld 51 b8d9-9610-47a9-add 5-
10fe814c 14d 3
1 hope you will contact the legislature on behalf of the Bar and support my solutions.
I am curious, if you do not consider anything I documented as a lie by the DA , what would you consider
as a lie?
This is a " request for review in writing " but I ' ll send another by post with a new letter to the General
Counsel .
Sincerely ,
Kirk Fraser
6/26/2008
American Solutions Print Solution Page 1 of 3
Fix Broken Legal System -- Free Tom Kelly

By Kirk
.SolutionNc /ve,?
Founding lawyers weren ' t liars. A recent case of Tom Kelly in Astoria ,
OR has been an education on how broken the system is. DA ' s railroad
innocent people to jail all the time. Lawyers need to be rewarded
for pursuing truth , not convictions.
.SolutionOverv /evr
Thomas M. Kelly sits in jail convicted of molesting his granddaughter, a
crime of which he is innocent . Fie has started several home churches over
the years and has never been accused of any such crime before dispite close
home contacts. Why would he molest someone he loves most when he
didn't molest others?
This is the first case I ' m aware of where DNA evidence has been used by a
DA to lie. A few sperm heads found under a cushion which could have
fallen out of his pants 25 years ago were used as recent evidence to convict
him without any DNA from the accuser . Consider alter sperm heads are
dried enough to lose their tails, simply sitting on a cushion will cause them
to move like grains of sand eventually to the underside of a cushion. They
weren' t necessarily ejaculated on that spot .
The unfortunate girl was diagnosed with a lengthy variety of psychological

illnesses which include telling not just little lies but whopper unbelievable
lies and that is a symptom described at http://www.accused.com of the
lengths children will go to try to fix a broken home the second time around ,
which was the situation in this case.
The DA lied throughout the trial and there is a demonstration of the DA

coaching the little girl on the stand to up the occurrence claims from from 2
- 3 to over 20 which significantly impacts jail time . When the Oregon State
Bar reviewed the case they lied saying the DA didn't violate rules of
,
professional conduct which include not lying . The Bar also lied on the
specific of coaching saying the girl was confused or nervous in a stressful
setting . That isn't good enough when the consequences are moving from
several years in prison to 166 years minimum .
The legal system is broken if many of the nation's DA 's

like http://en . wikipedia .org/wiki / Michael _ Nifong can be relied upon to
commit false prosecution of the innocent at taxpayer expense and their
peers at their local Bar support them. From an honorable profession of truth
seekers who founded this nation , lawyering has become a desperately evil
profession where lying is the standard of conduct making DA's a menace to
society 25% of the time, reducing them to actors in a play where the best
actor rules a person' s life. Do such people deserve to rule other people' s
lives?
Solutions?
http :// www . americansolutions . com /SolutionsLab/SolutionPrint . aspx?Guid= ld 51 b8 d9-961 . .. 6/26/ 2008
1 Reward prosecutors for pursuing truth instead of merely racking up a

record of wins in court.
2) Remove built in advantages in a trial of giving the DA the opening
statement AND two closings. If the DA has the opening the Defense should
have the final word .
—
3) P^emove the gullible jury advantage let people in who understand one
lawyer is ultimately lying and shouldn ' t be believed at all . Let people serve
who have experiences on the alleged crime yet no desire for vicarious
punishment .
—
4 ) Remove the multiple count advantage if a jury can guess on 21 counts,
they may give half to each lawyer . Instead have them decide guilt or
innocence on the whole case first before deliberating on counts.
5) Each state create an Innocence Commission to rapidly review and
overturn cases where the defendant is likely innocent.
6) Remove the can't afford bail to be free to mount a defense disadvantage .
—
7) Pray God has more power than the state .
Since the book Actual Innocence and the Innocence Projects it spawned in
various law schools say 25% of people accused in rape cases are proved
innocent by DNA testing and there is no reason to believe cases for which
DNA evidence is not available have any lesser rate of error, that means the
economy is paying for legal infrastructure not needed for the 25% of
prisoners who are actually innocent . So in the long run, an innocence
commission could save taxpayers money and improve the standard of living
by returning the innocently convicted to be freely productive .
What if an Innocence Commission errors at the same rate, 25% of the

people it sets free are actually guilty ? Simple, if the unjustly released are
stupid enough they will be back . The cost to society of these mistakes will
be less than the cost of violating the rights of the innocent . Another layer is
possible of a review commission to provide a check and balance on the
innocence commission.
Section One
Cost of this Solution
Click " EDIT" to add content or, " REMOVE" if this chapter is unnecessary .
Section Two
Key Facts/Specific Polling Data
Click " EDIT" to add content or. "REMOVE" if this chapter is unnecessary .
Section Three
Proposed Metrics for Measuring Success for this Solution
Click " EDIT" to add content or, "REMOVE" if this chapter is unnecessary .
Section Four
Strategies
http : // www.americansolutions.com /SolutionsLab/SolutionPrint . aspx? Guid= ld 51 b8d 9-961 ... 6/26/2008

Click "EDIT" to add content or , "REMOVE " if this chapter is unnecessary .
Section Five
Projects
Click "EDIT" to add content or, " REMOVE" if this chapter is unnecessary .
Section Six
Subject Matter Experts and Organizational Allies
Click "EDIT" to add content or, " REMOVE" if this chapter is unnecessary .
Section Seven
Opponents' Lines of Attack
Click "EDIT" to add content or , "REMOVE" if this chapter is unnecessary .
Section Eight
More Information
Click "EDIT" to add content or, "REMOVE" if this chapter is unnecessary.
New Chapter Title :
New Chapter Body :
Add Chapter ]
http : //www.americansolutions.com/SolutionsLab/SolutionPrint.aspx 7GuidMd 51b8d9-961 ... 6/26/2008

Message Page 1 of 2
Scott Morriii
To: Overcomer Man

Subject: RE: Your Genera ! Council is Incompetent
Dear Mr . Fraser ,
Regarding your two requests:
1) General Counsel's decision was based on all the materials provided by you or Mr. Brown and her letter to you
of September 26 th is her explanation . A copy of your e-mail was forwarded to her .
2) I am not aware that a legislator referred the bar to you . Our first contact with you appears to have been an e-
mail from you dated June 1, 2008 . We treated your e-mail dated June 16 , 2008 as a complaint. I have done a
quick review of your file , but cannot determine what legislator , if any , was involved. However, if you believe that
there is something in our file that may answer your question you may contact the bar ' s public records coordinator
at 503.620. 0222 x 330 to arrange to review the file.
Sincerely
Scott A. Morrill
Oregon State Bar
P.O. Box 231935
Tigard , OR 97281 - 1935
503.431 .6344
Fax : 503.684 . 1366
Original Message
From: Overcomer Man [mailto:overcomer.man@ gmail.com ]
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:35 AM
To: Scott Morrill
Subject: Re: Your General Council is Incompetent
Mr . Morrill ,
Two requests:
1 ) I insist on proof of your general council ' s claims.
2) Please send the name of the legislator who first referred you to me .
Sincerely ,
Kirk Fraser
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4 : 50 PM, Overcomer Man <overcomer. man@,gmail.com> wrote:
Mr . Morrill,
I received your general council ' s letter of Sept . 26 today and my response is the Bar definitely
—
needs to find a lawyer with a clue . She writes the FTR trial recordings do not support my
contentions they obviously do as supported by my detailed time citatiorLdocumentation and
9/29/2008
Message Page 2 of 2
she offers no proof of her contentions. She contends "There is absolutely no evidence to
support your allegation that Mr . Brown coached the [alleged] victim or otherwise knew she was
being untruthful . " By that statement Sylvia E . Stevens demonstrates either deafness or such
complete incompetence as to have no business representing anyone and ought to be disbarred
herself . Mr . Brown made several statements recorded on the trial CD's indicating he recognized
the alleged victim lied at various times but did not ask if she was lying in court. Brown's
coaching was clearly documented which any high school graduate could follow. I suggest Mz.
Stevens be inspected by a competent medical professional for Altzhiemer 's and other gross
—
mental problems perhaps even major loss of her brain itself. I ' ve heard that autopsies of
drunks sometimes show the brain has shrivelled to the size of a walnut . She obviously doesn't
have much rattling around there.
Mz. Stevens or what's left of her writes my belief is not based on facts. Certianlv
the speculative statements I have presented are of equal weight to Mr . Browns speculations.
Some of Mr. Brown's alleged facts I have proven false with evidence, for example the porn
websites of the girl's parents which are still available online, contradicting Brown's wild claim
that they would have to lie to say there is porn in the home. Also, the fact that the alleged DNA
"evidence " could have been 25 years old , with no DNA from the alleged victim indicates it
wasn't evidence at all, thus Mr. Brown lied to the jury using DNA.
I conclude Mz Stevens is not mentally capable of carefully considering facts. Whether her
fraud is from biological incapacity or political based on the conflict of interest she has as a
paid lawyer receiving funds from Mr. Brown's membership in the Bar and being a fellow lawyer
of Mr. Brown, it is still fraud.
Sincerely ,
Kirk W. Fraser
9/29/2008
Message Page 1 of 2
Scott Morriii
To : Overcomer Man
Cc : rbrown@co.clatsop . or. us
Subject : RE: Your Correspondence
Dear Mr. Fraser,
The bar has no authority over how attorneys (public or private ) choose to communicate with the public. Your
concern about Mr. Brown ' s e-mail is not within our jurisdiction and we will not ask him for a response . However
your e -mail will be added to the bar ' s file .
Sincerely
Scott A . Morrill
Oregon State Bar
P.O . Box 231935
Tigard , OR 97281-1935
503.431 .6344
Fax : 503.684.1366
Original Message
From: Overcomer Man [mailto:overcomer.man@ gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 10: 23 PM
To: Scott Morrill
Subject: Fwd: Your Correspondence
Mr . Morrill,
I don' t know if this communication from DA Brown and my recent reply would interest the Bar or
not . So I leave it to your discretion if if should be added to my complaint. I ask for your wisdom
'
to be applied since 1 know each addition delays review by General Council , but anything that
would interest the Bar is worthwhile .
Sincerely ,
Kirk Fraser
Forwarded message
From : Overcomer Man <overcomer.man@gmail.com>
Date : Sat, Sep 6 , 2008 at 10: 05 PM
Subject: Re: Your Correspondence
To : Ron Brown < RBRO WN @co.clatsop . or . us> , jmarquis@co . clatsop . or . us, da u co.clatsop.or . us,
administrator@co.clatsop.or . us, sheriff@co . clatsop.or.us. commissioners@,co.clatsop.or.us.
jhazen@eo.clatsop.or.us, Patjroberts@ipinc.net , jraichl@netzero . com, 918sam@centurytel . net,
asamuelson@,co.clatsop.or. us
9/8/2008
Message Page 2 of 2
DA Ronald Brown,
While Josh exercised his right to ask me to not use his personal email address (even though one
could argue it isn't personal as it 's published on the web), neither of you have any legal right to ask
me or anyone to not contact you by any means related to your official office and duties. You are
not a private attorney with the rights of private citizens in your office, you are paid by taxpayer 's
money thus you are responsible to taxpayers as long as you remain in your position .
Based on your boss' blog entry http://joshmarquis . blogspot . eom/2006/03/how- rnany -innocent-
victims-is-few. html you have a legal obligation to continue to receive and pay attention to
communications from me until you have realized your misconduct in which you perverted
justice and release Thomas M. Kelly from prison . The only other way for me to stop contacting
you to request you correct your extreme nightmare error is to resign so someone else will take
your responsability in this.
John 10:13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling , and careth not for the sheep.
If you can' t recognize every statement you made in the trial were lies, you can view this as sport
fishing and you caught one with excellent skill at convicting without evidence but it 's now time to
take out the hook and throw Thomas M . back because he's completely innocent of all charges .
I realize you aren't completely rational or you wouldn't have said anything calling my paper letters
threats to the press, law enforcement , and others since they weren 't sent to you voluntarily, but
were required by law to be sent to you in order to avoid "ex parte contact" insisted upon by
Clatsop county court clerks in order to pass my letters to the Judge and for her to agree to read
them. Your boss Marquis should evaluate your behavior in that event and perhaps get you into a
treatment program .
Love Truth,
Kirk Fraser
On Tue , Sep 2 , 2008 at 1 :29 PM, Ron Brown <RBROWN @co .clatsop.or.us> wrote :
Please don't send me or this office any more of your worthless e- mails or letters re St . v.
Thomas Michael Kelly . I have no respect for your opinions and feel you completely missed the
boat re this pervert .
Thank You.
This message has been prepared on resources owned by Clatsop County , Oregon . It is subject
to the Internet and Online Services Use Policy and Procedures of Clatsop County .
9/8/2008
Oregon Bar
September 26, 2008
Kirk W. Fraser
350 NE 6 th
Clatskanie , OR 97016
Re: Ronald Brown ( Kirk W. Fraser )
Dear Mr. Fraser:
I have reviewed all of the material submitted in connection with your complaint
regarding the conduct of Ronald Brown. As we have explained previously, the role of the
Client Assistance Office is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to form a
'
reasonable belief that a lawyer may have violated the rules and statutes that govern their
conduct so as to warrant further investigation by Disciplinary Counsel’s Office. For the
reasons explained below, 1 agree with the Client Assistance Office’s decision to dismiss your
complaint .
Your complaint is , in essence, that Ronald Brown procured a conviction against
Thomas Kelly by lying to and misleading the jury. Specifically, you claim he misinterpreted
the evidence and engaged in speculation. As evidence, you have submitted a recording of
portions of the trial proceedings ; however, they do not support your contentions .
Mr . Morrill’s letter of June 24, 2008 is an excellent explanation of a prosecutor’s role
and the permissible limits of advocacy in a criminal case. In short , Mr. Brown’s responsibility
was to present jury of the
defendant’s guilt . In so doing, he is entitled to draw all inferences from the evidence that
were consistent with his theory of the case .
There is absolutely no evidence to support your allegation that Mr . Brown coached
the victim or otherwise knew she was not being truthful. You also suggest that Mr. Brown
should have brought out the victim’s propensity for lying. Fie has no ethical obligation to do
so; on the contrary, that would be the obligation of defense counsel if she felt it was
appropriate . In any event , the fact that she has lied about other things is not evidence that
she was not telling the truth in this case.
The only conclusion I can draw from the materials submitted is that Mr . Brown
advocated zealously for a conviction in a case he believed in strongly. Clearly, you believe
every bit as strongly that Mr. Kelly is innocent . Your belief , however, is not based on facts,
16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, PO Box 231935 , Tigard , Oregon 97281-1935
(503) 620 -0222 toll - free in Oregon ( 800) 452 -8260 fax (503) 684-1366 www.osbar.org
Kirk W. Fraser
September 26 , 2008
Page 2
but only on your own interpretation of statistics , speculation and personal feelings. That
does not constitute sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation.
After carefully considering the facts presented , I concur in the Client Assistance
Office’s dismissal of your complaint . The Oregon State Bar’s file concerning your complaint
is now closed .
Sincerely,
/s/ Sylvia E. Stevens
Sylvia E. Stevens
General Counsel
SES/ jmm
cc: Ronald Brown, Attorney at Law
0801321
03c
Page 1 of 2
Scott Morrili
From: Overcomer Man [overcomer.man@gmail. com]

Sent: Friday , September 19 , 2008 11:12 PM
To: Scott Morrill
Subject: More pre-trial shenanigans by DA Brown
Mr . Morrill,
I don't know if you need a reply from Brown on this but it looked important enough to send you.
Richard Kelly is the defendant's dad .
Kirk Fraser
Forwarded message —
From : Richard Kelly < rfkelly @webtv . net>
Date : Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Subject : Fwd: Client Attorney Privileged
To: richardkelly 3@ webtv.net. overcomer . man@gmall .com
this was the first hearing before judge brownhill with brown „susan
reese . the hand signals on bail .lily my wie and i were there.the other
cops were hanthorn and slotte its been kind of kept in the dark but
slotte is under investigation and on paid administrative leave on
charges involving teenageg girls its being investigated by the state
,
police,hardly any news being released.might be a good feature for the

blog ...dick
- Forwarded message
From : captsofa@webtv.net
-
To : rfkelly @webtv . net

Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13 :43:54 -0700
Subject: Fwd: Client Attorney Privileged
Dad I' m forwarding these couple of e-mails to be printed at Tom's
request. Lily
Forwarded message
From : capt sofa @ webty, net
To: Aquit@aol .com
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13 :17: 05 -0700
Subject: Client Attorney Privileged
Susan in my observation at Court 9-14-06 I believe that the Judge
didn'Ct know anything of my case until the D.A read his statements, but
I noticed he added another twisting remark in his own interest and
9/22/2008
Page 2 of 2
motive before the judge. It was about the judge asking him if he had
talked to Chanels parents lately about something and he added a
Questionable remark and I Quote him > I remember talking to other
victims mothers but can"t remember if I talked to hers . He could and
should have made a clear statement indicating that he wasn't sure but
would follow up on it. To the judge this could of sounded like there was
other victims. He was mixing in other things without cause except to
deceive as with the mentioning of John Harvey which I believe he
didn't"t think you had any knowledge of . " trying to pull the wool over
your eye "s " And sending the judge a clear hidden message. With that
kind of evil projection out of a man in public court in front of others
it was damaging to me. Causing the Judge to make her decision that I was
a predator and a High risk . I say we demand another Motion for early
resolution" freeing me " based on his remarks in the court to Slander and
confuse the truth. By manipulating the Judge with lies and deception.
Remember there was no physical evidence or proof it was Chanels DNA, as
I said ten females sat on that cushion in the last year , I will be
bringing forward to you a witness that believes it was her" female DNA "
on the cushion , or will first talk to you when we get together with you
to review the light house tape, plus. Sincerely Brother Tom
9/22/2008
Page 1 of 1
Scott Morriii
From: Overcomer Man [overcomer . man@ gmail . com]

Sent: Saturday , September 13, 2008 11:30 PM
To: Scott Morrill
Subject: Another statement to add to my case against Ron Brown
Where the result is absolutely FALSE, the process must therefore be FALSE. There was no child abuse
so the verdict was FALSE therefore the arguments the jury believed were FALSE. Got it? There is no
statement or implication on the wrongness of sex abuse, it simply didn ' t even happen in this case .
Kirk Fraser
9/15 /2008
Page 1 of 3
r / IAV
'fk :/ -/-) -j
'
f t lr
Jft
> \ w
/ l^ v d , >
)
# '
K TJ / >
nan@ gmaii. com]

j /^ I I
•v
VAy? ; 5 5: 58 PM
'
L - / /V * JU / If
I V,
^
last.
kMIlCClClJ ,
Kirk Fraser
Forwarded message
From : Overcomer Man <overcomer.man@gmail.com>
Date : Mon, Sep 8 , 2008 at 5 : 35 PM
Subject : Re: Your Correspondence
To: Joshua Marquis <JMARQUIS@co . clatsop.or . us>
Cc : 918sam@centurytel .net. Clatsop Administrator <ADMINISTRATOR@co . clatsop . or . us>, Ann
Samuelson <ASAMUELSON@,co.clatsop.or.us>. Board of County Commissioners
<COMMISSIONERS@co.clatsop.or. us>. Clatsop County District Attorney 's Office
<DA@co.clatsop . or. us> , Jeff Hazen <JHAZEN@,co.clatsop . or. us> , Ron Brown
<RBROWN@,co.clatsop.or.us>. Sheriff Mailbox <SHERIFF@co.clatsop.or.us>, Patjroberts@ipinc.net.
jraichl a nctzero . com
Everyone,
Joshua Marquis and his mental homosexual partner Ron Brown are child molesters who are unconvicted
but deserve to have the book thrown at them for their consentual abuses of their own humanity and
ours. That 's more true than all their lies against Thomas M . Kelly , yet they use law enforcement to
empower their lies On my side 1 have the power of Truth since their lies molest the minds of every
child who reads them .
And as you can see they neither admit nor want to correct their lies in reality even though Marky posted
a blog saying convicting an innocent person is his worst nightmare . Since his behavior
in today ' s email has turned his blog into a lie, it ' s reasonable to assume his other blogs, his webpages, his
activities representing the State in Court , Clatsop County on the Justice Commission, and the state as a
VP in the national DA' s club are all lies. When I asked Josh to explain his evil , I didn' t realize it was
-himself.
I strongly suggest bringing in a GOOD person to campaign against Marquis and his office in the next
election and until then getting a new County Administrator who can stand up to Marquis and his lies as
well as being bold to stand up against them yourselves, yet within the law.
Oddly the Bar, a club of their peers, will review Brown's misconduct during the trial but doesn't care
how these guys defile their reputation and the law by lying in public. And if they consider this email
threatening, I can only add continue to cowl and shiver, until you repent. Now run away you wolves in
9/9/2008
Page 2 of 3
sheep's clothing so some real lawyers can correct your nightmare blunders of which I' m certian Tom
Kelly 's isn' t your first or last.
Sincerely ,
Kirk Fraser
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Joshua Marquis <JMARQUIS@co.clatsop.or. us> wrote:
.
Mr Frazier:
Due to your constant threats and harassment our office will no longer accept e-mails from your address. Your
.
support for a convicted child rapist is your right but we do not have to listen to your tirades You have filed
complaints with the Bar Association who have deemed them to be without merit. You flooded my personal e-
mail address with spam.
I will be asking that your e-mail address be blocked from our office .
If you have actual business with the DA's office you will be treated the same as any other citizen.
Otherwise your conduct has become threatening and unwelcome.
Joshua Marquis
District Attorney
> >> "Overcomer Man" <overcomer.manfa'< gmail.com > 9/ 6/ 2008 10:05 PM >>>
DA Ronald Brown,
While Josh exercised his right to ask me to not use his personal email address (even though one could argue
it isn't personal as it's published on the web), neither of you have any iegai right to ask me or anyone to not
contact you by any means related to your official office and duties. You are not a private attorney with the
rights of private citizens in your office, you are paid by taxpayer' s money thus you are responsible to
taxpayers as long as you remain in your position.
Based on your boss' blog entry http: / /ioshmarquis.bloqspot.com / 2006 / Q 3 /how-many-innocent-victims-is-

few .html you have a legal obligation to continue to receive and pay attention to communications from me
until you have realized your misconduct in which you perverted justice and release Thomas M. Kelly from
prison. The only other way for me to stop contacting you to request you correct your extreme nightmare
error is to resign so someone else will take your responsability in this.
John 10:13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
If you can't recognize every statement you made in the trial were lies, you can view this as sport fishing and
you caught one with excellent skill at convicting without evidence but it's now time to take out the hook and
throw Thomas M. back because he's completely innocent of all charges.
I realize you aren't completely rational or you wouldn't have said anything calling my paper letters threats to
the press, law enforcement, and others since they weren't sent to you voluntarily, but were required by law
to be sent to you in order to avoid "ex parte contact" insisted upon by Clatsop county court clerks in order to
.
pass my letters to the Judge and for her to agree to read them Your boss Marquis should evaluate your
behavior in that event and perhaps get you into a treatment program.
Love Truth,
Kirk Fraser
9/9/2008
Page 3 of 3
.
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 1: 29 PM, Ron Brown < RBROWN@ co.datsop or .us > wrote:
Please don't send me or this office any more of your worthless e-mails or letters re St. v. Thomas Michael
Kelly. I have no respect for your opinions and feel you completely missed the boat re this pervert.
Thank You.
This message has been prepared on resources owned by Clatsop County, Oregon. It is subject to the
Internet and Online Services Use Policy and Procedures of Clatsop County .
This message has been prepared on resources owned by Clatsop County, Oregon . It is
subject to the Internet and Online Services Use Policy and Procedures of Clatsop County .
9/9/2008
Page 1 of 3
Scott Morrill t:
4?
1/ <f
e vr~ j
From:
Sent:
Overcomer Man [ overcomer . man@ gmail . com]
Friday , August 29 , 2008 10 : 04 AM
4rr (V DA A
To: Scott Morrill /5 -

Subject: One more update on DA Ron Brown V ''
Mr . Morrill,
The following ernail (s) I want added to my complaint to show DA Brown committed other questionable
behavior before the trial, not only during the trial . This supports my request for the Bar to conduct a
thorough investigation beyond this case and the evidence I' ve previously presented , preferably
investigating the entire office .
The email describes DA Brown's mention of a notorious local criminal Harvey in order to cast
aspersions against innocent defendant Tom Kelly . Other misbehavior I heard of was to use hand signals
to the judge suggesting high bail , to avoid being recorded on the court FTR audio system .
Currently 20%-30% of all things done involving decisions made with 90% confidence are done wrong
because of generic human error, based on research reported in Harvard Business Review, June 2001 . In
the justice system human error produces 20%-30% of convicted prisoners who are innocent supported
by the book Actual Innocence and the many law school Innocence Projects it spawned .
I didn' t think that great published error rate was possible in reality until I analyzed this trial in detail .
The trial of Thomas M . Kelly, #06-1238 in Clatsop County had a DA and judge who committed these
errors:
1 ) DA Brown suppressed the evidence of the tape Tom M. Sr . stopped granddaughter from
watching .
2) DA Brown coached before and during the trial . (Easy coaching shown on accused .com. 2 nd
client video)
3) DA Brown used DNA evidence potentially 25 years old to lie to the jury - no " victim " DNA was
found .
4 ) DA Brown knew his alleged victim was a documented liar but didn ' t bother to ask if she was lying in
court.
5) DA Brown convicted Tom without credible evidence but judge Matyas called it " overwhelming
evidence. "
Although I wasn' t there 1 believe it highly unlikely that a person who started several home churches
without prior sex charges would start with his own granddaughter.
DA Brown's boss Joshua Marquis has published magazine articles copied on his website which deny
innocence statistics without reasonable proof - to support aggressively prosecuting cases where
innocence is likely or guilt can't be proved with evidence .
So Brown ' s good old boy network in the DA 's office is biased toward being proud of making mistakes
with people's lives 25% of the time, so proud that they wilfully lie about DNA evidence, coach
the alleged victim to lie, and suppress critical evidence . He' s also sheltered there, unaware of American
culture such as the Napa Auto Parts televised ad campaign " get the good stuff and other televised uses
9/4/2008
Page 2 of 3
such as :
Aug . 15 on the George Lopez show, his wife pulled half the stuff off the kitchen table, got on the
table in a provocative pose and said, " Do you want to argue or come here and get some of this
good stuff ?"
In view of that, how could a DA complain over and over about using "the good stuff to mean sperm ? I
think this may indicate the DA has a personal problem .
Sincerely,
Kirk Fraser
Forwarded message
From : Richard Kelly <rfkelly@webtv.net>
Date : Wed , Aug 27, 2008 at 9: 15 AM
Subject : Fwd : Attorney -Client Privileged
To: overcomer . man@gmail.com
kirk ...this is a saved email of toms i happrned upon .does it help in

anyway
Forwarded message
From : captsofa@webtv.net
To: rflcelly@webtv.net
Date : Sat , 14 Jun 2008 13: 45 : 49 -0700
Subject : Fwd : Attorney -Client Privileged
Forwarded message
From : captsofa @ webtv. net
To: captsofa@webtv . net
Date : Sun, 22 Oct 2006 17 :40 : 21 -0700
Subject: Attorney -Client Privileged
Enclosed is a CD-R of the Sept 14th 2:30 Court appearance.The one where
the crooked D . A mentions Harvey ,and sentencing to the Judge Paula
Brownhill who denied my release. I still feel he should be removed for
his dishonoring behavior,and what was his motive, but to influence the
Judge toward me ..I have one more legal motion for Judge replacement
pending Nov election results for Judge bench in Clatsop County . To use
this C.D-R you have to log on to the web site provided It takes an FTR
Player Plus 2.1 WWW.FIRGOLD.COM/SUPPORT/ DOWNLOAD.CFM all in small
lettering .All this information is found on C . D-R Cover .This is the way
the court set it up,which sucks. We don " t know anyone that has a
computer good enough to down load . Sincerely Tom
9/4/2008
Page 3 of 3
9/4/2008
Oregon Bar
August 19, 2008
Kirk W. Fraser
350 NE 6th .
Re: Susan E. Reese ( Kirk W. Fraser )
Dear Mr Fraser:
,
The Oregon State Bar has received your recent correspondence concerning Susan Reese and
Ron Brown .
The Client Assistance Office (CAO ) is responsible for reviewing concerns regarding Oregon
lawyers. Under Bar Rule of Procedure 2.5, CAO determines whether there is sufficient evidence to
support a reasonable belief that misconduct may have occurred warranting a referral to Disciplinary
Counsel’s Office for further investigation. Misconduct means a violation of the rules of professional
conduct and applicable statutes that govern lawyer conduct in Oregon.
Your concerns about Ms. Reese do not fall within the bar’s jurisdiction . However , if the
Court takes any affirmative action regarding your pleadings, please feel free to contact us.
A lawyer whose conduct falls below the standard of care in the community may be liable to
the client for legal malpractice. If you feel you have a legal malpractice claim against Ms. Reese, you
may want to contact another attorney to explore what remedies are available to you . You or your
new attorney may also want to contact the Professional Liability Fund , PO Box 231600, Tigard, OR
97281-1600. The PLF provides professional liability ( malpractice ) coverage to most attorneys in
private practice in Oregon.
We are unable to provide legal advice or representation and encourage you to contact an
attorney of -your also be able to get the name of an attorney to help
you by calling the OSB Referral and Information Service at (503) 684-3763 or (800 ) 452-7636
(within Oregon ) .
I hope this information is helpful.
Sincerely,
Scott A. MorrilU
Ext. 344
SAM / emr
cc w/ encl: Susan E. Reese, Attorney at Law
Ronald Brown, Attorney at Law
0801672/0801321
02c
16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, PO Box 231935, Tigard, Oregon 97281-1935
(503) 620- 0222 toll-free in Oregon (800) 452 -8260 fax (503) 684-1366 www.osbar.org
350 NE 6 th
August 7, 2008
Scott A. Morriii
Oregon State Bar
P.O. Box 231935 m
in
re
}
-n iJr=
, i
3
f "rn
jm R!
Tigard, OR 97281-1935
503.431.6344 (direct line) AUG 1 I 2008 h
smorrillTD,osbar.org
OREGON STATE BAR
CLIENT ASSiSTANCF OFFICE
Mr. Morrill,
RE: Update of Misconduct Complaints on DA Ron Brown and Attorney Susan Reese
The Sentencing for the Tom Kelly case is enclosed on the FTR CD. The sentencing date of July
28, 2008 gave plenty of time for the lawyers to both receive copies of evidence of mistrial I sent
to the judge and certainly DA Brown at least received your communication before then too.
There was no change in behavior by DA Brown as the CD demonstrates. This proves he is
incapable of self -correction and is in need of the maximum disciplinary measures the Oregon
State Bar can provide.
DA Brown’s chiding of the defense for not providing an explanation for a few claims he made
was unacceptable considering adequate explanation had been provided him via my complaint
letters. Further, his claims to the press that I had sent threatening letters to himself and the
defense attorney is unacceptable considering I was required to send them by law respecting “non
parte” contact in order to get my letters delivered to the judge. A copy of the article in the Daily
Astorian is enclosed.
Although Attorney Susan Reese’s behavior improved at Sentencing, she still took an attitude of
compliance with the verdict with some statements that could be taken as admission of guilt
instead of keeping the defense position of innocence despite the DA’s success in fooling the jury.
One additional observation I’d like to state on her performance at Closing is she chose a
speculative scenario to explain why DNA appeared on the cushion, that the accused watched
pornographic videos and masturbated there which made the accused appear as a sleaze of the
type capable of committing the alleged acts instead of choosing a scenario as I did in my mistrial
report which put the emission totally outside the basement with sperm carried there by his pants
and migrating under the cushion by repeated sitting on it over the years. Making her client
appear a sleaze was misbehavior which I hope is worthy of discipline.
Sincerely,
;; /V
Kirk W. Fraser
503-728-4894
Overcomer.man@gmai I.com
\
}
State v Thomas Michael Kelly 06-1238 Courtroom 100
Speaker Note .j
..
9:10 :55 AM Ion record :
9 :11:10 AM { state v kelly ( 06-1238
9:TT: T4 AM1court
'
‘ '
'
( open - instruction to courtroom

9712:15 AMTstate
'
( opening statement
f
9:12:40 AM ( state ( offers ex 1 /no objection/ received
9:2 f :20 AM1state ( calls thomas a keily jr for testimony
9 : 25:36 AM ( state ( calls chane! keily for testimony
9 :26:31 AM ( state ( calls annie reeves for testiony
9: 29:15 AM ( reese ( opening statement
'
9:33:38 AM ( reese ( calls ca thy kelly for testimony

9:35:35 AM ( reese ( calls amy kelly for testimony
9:38:18 AM ( reese ( calls iiiiy kelly for testimony
9 :40:51 AM ( reese ( calls gloria kelly for testimony
9:43:19 AM ( reese ( continue statement
9:57: T8 AM Ikeliv ( defendant statement to family/court
9:59:55 AM ( state further Gommenk^ —
T 0:00:27 AMIcourt Isentence

10:15: 55 AMjoff record i
The Daily Astorian • The North Coast's Newspaper | Astoria man sent to prison for 36 years Page 1 of 3
m\ <3>
GUISE
Monday , July 28, 2008
Strict security in courtroom for sentencing of convicted sex offender after threats
By JOE GAMM and DAVID HOLLEY

The Daily Astorian
Monday , July 28, 2008
His gray beard was cut short and his hair slicked back when 57-year-old Thomas Michael Kelly
of Astoria entered a Clatsop County Courtroom Monday morning.
He wore a bright yellow jumpsuit with CLATSOP COUNTY INMATE stenciled across the
back. Shackles on his arms and legs forced him to shuffle as he entered Courtroom 100.
Flanked by two brown - uniformed Clatsop County deputies at all times, he stood quietly as
Circuit Court Judge Cindee Matyas listed the penalties she would impose for the crimes of
which he was convicted.
-
Six imposing looking deputies lined the low wall that separated the gallery from the well of the
court. Sheriff Tom Bergin and five others were spread throughout the gallery.
Matyas sentenced Kelly to four consecutive 100-month sentences - more than 33 years in
prison.
-
"There was overwhelming evidence there truly was," Matyas said. " In the face of
Thomas Kelly overwhelming evidence, you deny responsibility. There is some mindset - when you justify
some sort of sexual interaction with children - that's disturbing."
-
A 12 person jury found Kelly guilty of 12 counts each of first-degree sodomy and first- degree sex abuse for ongoing abuse of a girl
between July 2004 and May 2006. The girl is now age 10.
-
Ron Brown, Clatsop County's chief deputy district attorney, sought eight consecutive 100 month terms.
-
Threatening letters
Dozens of close friends and family members of Kelly ’s crowded the courtroom during both his trial and the sentencing. They contacted
numerous media outlets, crying injustice.
And one sent threatening letters to Brown, Clatsop County District Attorney Josh Marquis, Kelly's Portland attorney Susan Reese, and
other people involved in the trial.
HYtemian who sent you-hate-maH is out there, would you like an escort?" asked a county deputy as Reese prepared to leave the
courtroom.
Reese declined the offer.
As she departed, she told a reporter, "I would like to say that he's profoundly sorry ," adding that she believed the sentence was
disproportionate to similar cases in other parts of the state.
Strict security
And, by many accounts, there were numerous unusual events in this sentencing.
http://www.dailyastorianxom/print.asp?ArticleID=53148&SectionID=2&SubSectionID=398 8/7/2008
The Daily Astorian • The North Coast's Newspaper | Astoria man sent to prison for 36 years Page 2 of 3
Bryant Baehr, the trial court administrator, said the Sheriffs Office only asks the court to use metal detector wands to check people
entering the courtrooms four to five times per year, and they did for this hearing.
The victim and her family were brought into the courtroom before other gallery attendees and the press.
Then Kelly was led in.
Kelly's wife, Lilly, was one of the first of his supporters allowed into the courtroom. She gazed around the room .
She looked to the corner where the victim 's father sat, with tears in his eyes and fists on his lap.
Father unconvinced
Kelly 's family and supporters shot frequent, elongated glances at the the victim and her parents, who sat at the wall in the back comer of
the gallery, across the court from the judge.
"The whole trial, in my opinion, was a 25-eent Vaudeville act," said Richard Kelly, Kelly's father. He rocked back and forth in his seat
as Matyas announced his son's sentences, staring for nearly 10 minutes at the family of the victim .
Kelly's family spoke to the court with emotional voices. Some declaimed Kelly's conviction, while others spoke of his innocence.
"1 just want to say that you 'll never find a better son. Never," said his mother, Gloria Kelly.
Supporting his body against the rail of the courtroom , the victim 's father spoke tearfully to the defendant in a courtroom filled with
dozens of Kelly's supporters.
"My family is mined," he said. " We're never going to get over this."
fI can never forgive him
Kelly did not divert his eyes from the victim’s father while he spoke. When the 10-year-old victim stood to address the court, Kelly
leaned back in his chair. " I feel bad for him , but I can never forgive him either," the youngster said.
When he spoke the court, Kelly did not express any regret for the crimes he was convicted of, but told the victim and her father that he
loves them . Kelly made a joke, and before he sat down, burst into song with his wife and daughter.
"To know, know you is to love, love, love you. Just to see you smile..." Kelly sang, breaking off the Phil Spector song in mid-sentence.
"... it makes my life worthwhile," his wife, Lilly, and daughter, Aime, continued.
Appeal planned
Many of Kelly 's supporters still believe in his innocence, and think that his sentencing is not the end of the road.
"The bottom line is we will pursue an appeals process and we believe in my brother's innocence," said Kelly's sister, Kathy
Zimmerman, of Portland.
During the sentencing, Judge Matyas said the evidence against Kelly was overwhelming.
" I can 't say that the jury 's finding was disproportionate to the evidence," she said.
After Kelly was removed, the victim and her family left the courtroom first, escorted by Clatsop County deputies. Kelly's family and
supporters shuffled out of the court room , lingering in the parking lot.
At 10:30 a.m., a Clatsop County deputy asked the group to leave the courthouse parking lot, sayingThey were intimidating.
Got what he deserved’
Brown said he was proud to be a part of the prosecution and praised the Clatsop County Sheriffs Office after the hearing. He said the
investigators did a good job of seizing a chair which had Kelly's DNA on it, which was a key piece of evidence.
"It's nice to tell the victim (the conviction ) doesn't all ride on them ," Brown said. "He got what he deserved.
"1 do feel sorry for his family . In big, significant cases, people refuse to look at the evidence objectively."
http://www.dailyastorian.com/print.asp?ArticleID=53148&SectionID=2&SubSectionID=398 8/7/2008
Page 1 of 1
Scott n/lorriii
From: Overcomer Man [ overcomer.man@ gmail. com]

Sent: Thursday , August 07, 2008 10:46 AM
To: Scott Morrili
Subject: Tom Kelly ' s Attorney and DA Complaint Update
Mr . Morrill,
I am sending a FTR CD of the Sentencing to amend my complaint(s). Basically DA Brown continuted

his lies after being made aware of them both by you and me sending letters to him . Tom 's lawyer acted
much better at the Sentencing than at the Closing.
I' ve reported the Judge's behavior including failing to complain to the Bar about both attorney 's to the
Judical commission you previously referred me to. However I haven 't heard a word from them even to
acknowledge receipt of my complaint. Have you an email address of your counterpart who can provide
interactive responses?
Thanks,
Kirk Fraser
8/ 1 1 / 2008
Page 1 of 1
Scott n/!orri !
From : Overcomer Man [overcomer . man@ gmail.com]

Sent : Monday , August 11 , 2008 10 : 38 AM
To : Scott Morrill
Subject: DA Mob Boss
Mr . Morrill ,
If a DA lying is a crime then Astoria DA boss Joshua Marquis is a mob boss of lying with published
articles against innocence (the thought that some people targeted by police are actually innocent) with
hands in many areas, local, state, and national . The judge used to work for Marquis. Here's a link to
Marquis' websites http://coastda .com/
,
If you can print this and add it to my complaint , great ! If not , let me know to send a paper copy .
Sincerely ,
Kirk Fraser
8/ 11 / 2008
350 NE 6th
Clatskanie. OR 97016
July 17, 2008
Scott A. Morrill
Oregon State Bar
P.OTBOX 231935
Tigard, OR 97281-1935
503.431.6344 (direct line)
smorrill @osbar.org
Mr. Morrill, r
H^
. OREGON STATE BAR
NIASSIS lANCh OFFiOF j
RE: Misconduct Complaint on Attorney Susan Reese
The enclosed letter to Judge Matyas and Incompetence Of Council Report are the evidence for
this complaint against Defense Attorney Susan Reese. You may combine it with the complaint
appeal on DA Ron Brown who was in the same trial, State v. Thomas Kelly 06-1238 recorded on
the same FTR CD’s.
Sincerely,
1^ " -^
• ' f tW4M.
Kirk W. Fraser
503-728-4894
Overcorner.man @gmai I .com
350 NE 6lh
Clatskanie, OK 97016
July 18, 2008
Cinaee S. Matyas
PO Box 835
Astoria, OR 97103
Judge Matyas:
RE: Friend of Court Brief; Request For Mistrial & Acquittal or Reduced Sentence On State V. Thomas M. Kelly, Case 06-1238
According to former Clatsop County DA Stephen Gerttula, Thomas M. Kelly’s best chance is if starts confessing she was
lying and Tom’s attorney picks it up to justify a trial His second best chance is if Tom starts claiming incompetence of council for his
Appeal. So it occurs to me that one or both of the following changes improving my friend of the court brief may be appropriate.
1) If it is only acceptable to make a request for mistrial or reduced sentence based on Incompetence Of Council, I am submitting
a report on this case tailored to blame Tom’s attorney Susan Reese.
2) If the Judge is unwilling to make the decision herself, I suggest that I be authorized to present this letter and report to the jury
to see if any members are willing to change their votes on this case given the enclosed facts they weren’t told. To make this
possible, I further ask for the Jury Clerk to be authorized to provide the correct list of Juror’s addresses to mail to.
A strong motive for Annie Reeves to use long-term subtle coaching and programming of by simple questions has come to my
attention. Apparently the Thomas M. Kelly’s successfully sought to have Annie fired from a job based on information on one of
Annie’s websites. The website is now inaccessible by the public but content was copied. MySpace content included Annie’s
statement of desire to shoot Thomas M. Kelly. This death threat should have been brought up by defense council to explain the
strength of Annie’s vital motive to use as a weapon to attack Thomas M. Kelly.
Tuesday, October 3, 2006 Blog entry by Pixieprints aka. Annie Reeves
Sometimes I visualize myself dropping to one knee and sighting in the balding head of the child rapist that recently fucked up
our lives as we knew it! And to make matters worse a local judge gave the pedophile his bail money back!! How disgusting
that there is no accountability anymore... how sad judges no longer administer justice. And people have the nerve to wonder
why relatively sane people just snap one day and take matters into their own hands. Funny thing is if I blew his fucking head
off you bet the damn judge wouldn’t give me my bail money back to pay my lawyer. ...
The defense council’s attitude during the trial and especially her closing statement seemed to be addressing some jury she imagined
was present other than average Americans who had seen countless episodes of many police and court shows on TV from the early
days of The FBI and Ironsides to more recently past McCloud and Walker Texas Ranger to present day Cops and the recently renamed
Court TV network which frequently emphasize the need for motive, means, and opportunity to prove a case. When she said “This
isn’t about motives,” she appeared to be addressing people who didn’t exist.
If I had to characterize Susan Reese, I would say she acted like a little girl playing at serving tea against a skilled weasel doing the
State’s most dirty work of suppressing evidence, creating the most degenerate scenarios his mind could imagine and aggressively
selling them to fool the jury into marking up another win for his modem day un-American Activities hunt instead of caring for truth.
During her closing Susan took water from her container exactly the same time as the DA implying perhaps she was unconsciously or
intentionally acting in concert with the DA by making frivolous acquittal requests to appear to be defending Tom while expressing a
submissive defense to insure the DA’s victory.
Susan Reese was so incompetent at proving Mr. Kelly’s innocence that continued support of her failures may endanger the judge to a
review by her superiors at the Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability at PO Box 1130, Beaverton, OR 97075-1130.
To do a better job than the jury informed by opposing attorneys, please first educate yourself in false sexual accusation topics by
watching the first four continuing legal education videos at http://wvvw.accused.coin /library / mcle.vids. html and the first for clients
at http:// www.acciised.com / library /clientvids. htrgil. Then review the trial with the attached report to see how the facts fit the truth .
If you do not find enough support to acquit, I ask that you minimize the sentence to concurrent and convert it to probation on the basis
that Mr. Kelly has been convicted of molesting his granddaughter without previous accusation from members of home churches he
started over the years which I attended since 1980 in Astoria, Clatskanie, Knappa, and Rainier until June 2008 and he won’t likely see
his granddaughter again so has no opportunity and he will be more benefit to society employed than costing society as a prisoner.
I hope I give you a reasonable doubt about the verdict. Please show Tom Kelly’s family, friends, and the public you care about truth.
Sincerely,
Kirk W. Fraser
Incompetence Of Council Report
On State v. Kelly Case 06-1238
Compiled by Kirk W. Fraser
1 ) Council failed to educate Judge and Jury on the details of sexual abuse to support showing how this case doesn’t fit.
Here are some resources the Defense Council could have studied and conveyed useful information from.
CECI, S. J . & BRUCK, M. ( 1995). Jeopardy in the
Courtroom. American Psychological Association. Call (800) 374-2721. (Case studies and
scientific research to clarify points for evaluating children's
statements.)
GARDNER, RICHARD ( 1992 ). True and False Accusations of Child Sex
Abuse. Order from Creative Therapeutics, 155 Country Road, Cresskill,
NJ 07626-2675. (A guide for legal and mental health professionals.)
ISSUES IN CHILD ABUSE ACCUSATIONS. A quarterly journal published by
Institute for Psychological Therapies, 13200 Cannon City Boulevard,
Northfield, MN 55057-4405 (507) 645-8881.
TONG, DEAN (1996). Ashes to Ashes...Families to Dust; False
Accusations of Child Sexual Abuse: A Road Map for Survivors. Hampton
Roads. (Personal experiences and lists some resources.)
WEXLER, RICHARD ( 1990). Wounded Innocents: The Real Victims in the War
Against Chil d Abus e. Prometheus Books. (Investigates child welfare
system.)
National Child Abuse Defense and Resource Center
(419) 865-0513. FAX (419) 865-0526
VOCAL (Victims of Child Abuse Legislation )

(520) 722-1968 and (800) 745-8778
www.abused.com is a website that features useful articles and videos.

Statement of reasonable doubt: Wouldn’t a condensed education on the details of sexual abuse help the jury better decide how the
facts fit expert analysis and possibly decided the prosecution’s analysis didn’t fit the facts?
Statement of Incompetent Council: Council was responsible for creating a framework for understanding the case from the perspective
of the Defense and generally failed to supply any foundation for belief in Tom’s innocence except supply a list of expert witnesses of
’s psychology of which only the one from England was any good. Council didn’t even focus the questions enough for her most
expensive and experienced expert to say anything that clearly contributed to the defense.
2) Council failed to rebut DA’s emphatic statement on ’s access to pornography in her home.
’s parents developed websites with pom links. ’s parents subscribe to a satellite TV provider which carries a
pornographic channel. The pom movies in Thomas M. Kelly’s basement were owned by Thomas A. Kelly, ’s dad.
May 27, 2008 11:22:26 AM DA said It’s about motives, asked if any pornography in house there is no evidence, they’d have to lie
The Truth: Porn on their website profiles means there is pom on the computer(s) in their house (possibly from start of relationship).
See: Tom Jr . http:// profjles. vahoo.com / f1yinRfish 52 (cool link to www. penishot . com )
See: Anne http:// profiles. yahoo.com / pizernlace (cool link to www. satimiippers.com )
'
Statement of reasonable doubt:-Sinee the DA’s very emphatie-elaim that they’d have to lie to say
provably a lie by the DA, it is reasonable to assume the DA used other lies to support his case.
Statement of Incompetent Council: Tom’s attorney should have rebutted the DA’s wild and emphatic claim since ’s access to
pornography may have educated her in male anatomy and sexual relations with major details not provided by Thomas M. Kelly at any
time or by any means.
3) Council failed to ask if she was lying about what Tom did.
Kelly was evaluated by experts as telling huge whopper lies and wasn’t asked if she was doing it on the stand.
May 22, 2008 4:22:19 PM Psych. Christine Arthur - She told the whoppers, lies no one could believe and it went on and on.
The absence of asking if she was lying now on the stand reflects badly on the defense and both lawyers’ pursuit of the truth.
Statement of reasonable doubt: Is it possible that might have confessed she made the whole thing up if she were simply and
directly asked? Without Anne present?
Statement of Incompetent Council: Tom’s attorney certainly should have asked if was lying since she was so well documented
as a liar and if she wouldn’t admit it on the stand the question might have pricked her conscious enough to consider telling the truth
now.
4) Council failed to explain the motives as to why a child would lie so profoundly.
Kelly fits the classic profile of a child who will do anything to make her second home work.
A System Out of Balance video at http:// www .accused .eom / l ibrary /cl ient. vids. htm 1 33:35 into recording
“ A long campaign of subconscious programming is more effective than overt brainwashing. It destroys the bond between the ex-
spouse and child.”
This divorce scenario sounds like it describes the tug of war relationship between Tom and Annie as partial parents to the child.
Annie succeeded in destroying ’s love for Tom enough so she changed from a past testimony that she loved him to saying on
the witness stand that she didn’t love him.
A System Out of Balance video at http:// www .accused .com / l ibrary/ client . vids. html 34:00 into recording
“ A child who has a basic psychological bond with one parent that is stronger than that with the hated parent will do anything to
maintain that bond between the loved parent and the child. Remember the child feels they were once abandoned by the hated parent
when the divorce occurred. The child does not want to be abandoned a second time by taking sides against the loved parent. They
will do anything to maintain that bond with the loved parent. One of the ways this is done is by making complaints against the hated
parent. The child then gathers support from the loved parent. The child is fearful of expressing love for the hated parent for fear that
it will displease the loved parent. The complaints start out as minor complaints but when the child custody battle becomes ferocious
and the small complaints escalate into accusations of child abuse.”
was in this scenario more than any proposed by the DA. There was an unwritten custody battle between grandpa Tom who
loved and her new step-mom who she saw every day. The mom fine-tuned her psychological warfare as attacked her
dad Tom Jr. with false accusations of hitting her with a stick to attacking her grandpa with false accusations of sex abuse.
Statement of reasonable doubt: Could the charges be just plain wrong? The motives for lying seem very strong.
Statement of Incompetent Council: Tom’s attorney should have made the jury aware of these psychological facts so the jury could
understand a more natural idea of what was happening than the DA’s depraved sex based speculations.
5) Council failed to explain to the jury the extent of coaching that went on pre-trial and failed to expose it when the DA
did it right in the courtroom.
Kelly was coached pre-trial, and on the witness stand by the DA proving her susceptibility to coaching.
Proof of coaching the girl is available by comparing the pre-trial documentation with her trail testimony .
Interview between Det. Kristen Hanthom and Elaine Kelly on June 1 2006 -- Date of Tom's arrest.
T
Concerning 's description of Tom's penis.
HANTHORN: I can give you her exact words; She said , "The balls are gushy and the middle is hard and the top is soft . "
ELAINE: You know what? Right there, He can't get an erection. He's been humm ,
He's not been able to get an erection for a good year or so.
HANTHORN: So you guys have sexual relations then?
ELAiNE: Yes , He's not been abie to gei an erection.
In the trial has changed her testimony from hard in Hoover’s initial report to say it was soft (May 21, 2008 3:38:24). One
instance of lying by coaching means there could be others. said she lies to not get in trouble (3:51:10). She talked because her
mom was being nice (4:12:31). Was she coached by all interviewers being nice?
claimed on the stand her alleged abuse only happened 2 or 3 times over the whole time with grandparents ( May 21, 2008
3:42:07-40). That means most of the alleged counts are absolutely speculative lies which should be thrown out. Later the DA was
able to get her to say more than 20 times (4:39:35). Is that easy to coach? That credibility would argue the whole case with all
charges should be thrown out.
Statement of reasonable doubt: Do the few child molesters who start late in life have Erectile Dysfunction AND still have sexual
relations with a wife?
Statement of Incompetent Council: Tom’s attorney should have explained to the jury how often coaching happened pre-trial and
objected, challenged, exposed or otherwise called attention to the DA’s coaching right in the courtroom. Council should also have had
an answer to the statement of reasonable doubt above to show how unlikely the prosecution’s case is.
6) Council failed to emphasize the abuse in her mother’s care as a cause for the trouble which she created in her dad’s care.
Kelly was abused in her biological mother’s custody before in custody of dad and visitations to her grandparents.
May 22, 2008 4:20:29 PM Psych. Christine Arthur - Possible abuse & violence brackets birth to 3.5
Statement of reasonable doubt: if was violently abused from birth to 3.5, is it likely traumatic reactions could include false
accusations about both parents and grandparents?
Statement of Incompetent Council: Tom’s attorney should have made it clear in the jury’s mind how ’s abuse preceded the
many traumatic reactions and counter reactions by drug prescriptions with their side effects.
7 ) Council failed to tell the jury the charges are so unlikely that random guessing would be more accurate.
Tom Kelly was voted guilty on charges that have a 60% false accusation rate, worse than random guessing.
A System Out of Balance video at http:// www .accused .com / iibrary / dient. vidsJitml 01:00 into recording
Statement of reasonable doubt: If this modem witch hunt atmosphere produces accusations at a rate weighted worse than random
guessing, could it be that Tom Kelly is completely innocent?
Statement of Incompetent Council: Tom’s attorney should have both known and informed the jury of the 60% false accusation
statistic. Opposing council may have argued that still leaves a 40% possibility of accuracy but reasonable jurors would realize the
preponderance of the statistic means they should require better evidence from the DA than affirming speculations as facts .
8) Council failed to object to the multiple counts being charged by coaching .
Tom Kelly was prosecuted with increased charge counts due to coaching of the accusing child.
Charge counts were calculated based on the statement of counting on all her fingers and toes spread over time by the color of
houses she lived in at the time of alleged abuses. This pre-trial event was mirrored during the trial. As supported in item 4) the child
was coached by the DA on the witness stand to move her count of occurrences up from 2 - 3 to over 20. According to Tom
she also has said he does it all the time. Did the DA also coach her like that pre-trial?
Statement of reasonable doubt: Should such inconsistent testimony ranging from about once a year to once a month to unceasingly
decide how many years a person’s life is wasted in prison? Obviously 2 of the statements are her lies, could all three be lies?
Statement of Incompetent Council: Tom’s attorney should have objected asking for at least the smallest charge count or none instead
of letting the other alternatives be pressed.
9) Councii failed to make proper objections and presentations at trial and closing statement.
Defense attorney Susan Reese did not object to many objectionable statements and actions by the prosecution, some of which are
noted in the accompanying Preliminary Misconduct Report for DA Brown. Her closing statement was so weak, parts of it were barely
audible. Tom Kelly states, “There are at least three boxes of information of the defense that were not brought up in trial for basically
the defense attorney stayed with the mental condition of Kelly and Annie Reeves both their past.” She said it was not about
motives when motives are a key to understanding why the initial abuse charge was made and why lying continued for 2 years to the
witness stand. See section 3) and 14).
Time was spent at trial start to redact people praising on tape which was a part of the pre-trial coaxing thatmay have
embellished some reported events including the charge counts.
Statement of reasonable doubt: Had the defense attorney acted to more aggressively object at the DA’s conjectures, lies, coaching, and
any other errors, could the minds of the jurors balanced both attorney’s aggression and seen through it to a more accurate picture of
the trial instead of simply believing the more aggressive attorney? Might they have changed their verdict had all the evidence
collected been presented?
Statement of Incompetent Council: Tom’s attorney missed many opportunities to object to the DA which let the Jury believe she
agreed to or at least acquiesced to his statements.
10) Council failed to keep the moral high ground in her closing explanation of the sperm evidence. —
Tom Kelly had sperm heads which could have been 25 years old used as evidence within the shorter trial time window.
The sperm found on the cushions were not fresh as their tails were gone and could have been up to 25 years old, much longer than
has been alive. It’s possible these were deposited by non-sexual activity such as nocturnal emission and carried there in Tom’s
pants. He may have had sexual activity with his wife there. Whatever the source, after drying they are like grains of sand which may
fall on a cushion which eventually bounce under the cushion with repeated sitting and standing over time. There is no evidence the
sperm were deposited during ’s presence in the house let alone in any direct encounter with her.
Statement of reasonable doubt: Since there is no proof Tom’s sperm were deposited in the manner alleged by the DA, is it actually
evidence of a crime or the first case I’ve heard of where a DA uses DNA to lie to a jury?
Statement of Incompetent Council: Tom’s attorney painted a vulgar image of Tom masturbating in front of a collection of videos in
the basement as an alternative theory to the DA’s sperm deposit scenario which did not adequately separate Tom from the DA’s lies in
the jury and audience’s minds. Instead Council should have not succumbed to the DA’s level of imagination and instead kept a higher
level of behavior in the mind of the jury.
11) Council failed to make it clear Tom was not motivated by perverted sexual desires.
Tom Kelly had love with no intent of arousing or gratifying the lust or passions or sexual desires of himself or .
Loving grandparents had removed from her mother’s abuse. Further expressions of love led to desire to rest on Tom ’s
breast as disciple John rested on Jesus’ breast, out of love, not for sex. That love helped transition her from the abusive home she was
in which made her be diagnosed with many disorders, to a better life where psychoactive drugs weren’t needed.
Statement of reasonable doubt: Is it possible climbed up on her grandfather to rest there as an expression of love, much like a
pet will climb on its loving provider, instead of as an act of sexual perversion?
Statement of Incompetent Council: Tom’s attorney should have explained how normal and loving Tom is having a wife to satisfy him
sexually and no need or desire for anything like the DA’s speculative perversions.
12) Council failed to object or find other means to stop the DA’s many speculations and lies.
Tom Kelly was prosecuted with speculation and outright lies which are stated illegal by the Oregon Bar.
Although the Oregon State Bar declares lies as illegal behavior by a trial lawyer, the Bar being asked twice by email would not specify
what lies they would prosecute as distinct from normal trial behavior. The DA’s statements documented in the enclosed Preliminary
Misconduct Report are candidate lies.
Statement of reasonable doubt: When a person’s future freedom is on the line, should even the appearance of lying be an accepted
normal practice to convince a jury? If jury members vote influenced by a lie, isn’t the verdict also a lie?
Statement of Incompetent Council: Tom’s attorney should have strenuously objected to many of the DA’s statements but rarely
objected to any.
13) Council failed to even mention Tom Sr.’s years of home church activity without incident or accusation of sexual crimes.
Tom Kelly had no prior sexual molestation accusations in over 28 years of church starting.
Elected DA Josh Marquis admitted that Tom Kelly had no priors. Tom was in many people’s homes while starting churches in
Astoria, Clatskanie, Rainier, and Knappa so he had more opportunity than a shut-in, recluse, or hermit yet he didn’t abuse the
hospitality.
Statement of reasonable doubt: Is it reasonable to think a person who kept himself sexually pure over years of church founding would
betray a member of his own family whom he loved enough to help save from abuse?
Statement of Incompetent Council: Tom’s attorney received prolific writings on Christian topics from Tom mingled with his court
related observations and didn’t even think to ask about the spiritual side of his life and history as it related to this case.
14) Council failed to objected to the DA’s unprofessional behavior of accusing before proving.
Tom Kelly did not receive the due process of being presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The legal processing system is broken since it allows DA’s to wildly accuse citizens in their opening statement before proving
anything and their peers at the local Bar support it. A much more civilized approach would be to say, “the state will work to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that” ... (list of alleged facts) instead of pretending the accusations immediately have standing as fact.
Statement of reasonable doubt: Since the DA stretched the presumption of innocence rule in his opening statement, it is reasonable to
assume he also stretches the law in other areas. Could enough stretching of the law frame a false verdict?
Statement of Incompetent Council: Tom’s attorney should have objected to the DA’s unprofessional behavior of accusing before
proving:
15) Council failed to explain motive, means, and opportunity supporting false charges.
Kelly has a stepmother who had a vicarious need to punish someone for her sex abuse and a financial motive.
Motives for Annie Reeves to lie include: to stabilize relation with Tom Jr., vicarious punishment on her childhood abuser,
punishment to senior Kellys for not babysitting her own kids when having back pain, and future civil suit money. The intent for a
civil lawsuit against the defendant’s wife Lily has received a warning of since the trial from a person conversant with both sides.
Tommy tried to pawn children off to Tom and Lily as Annie threatened to leave. With this fabrication, realizes she can get
Annie's approval, that she did not have before. States Annie is her best friend now.
Statement of reasonable doubt: The keys to legal proof seem to be motive, means, and opportunity. Annie had motives. Her means
was subtle coaching of who had greater motives based on classic behavior to maintain a friendly loving parent relationship in
her life, and because Annie and live together Annie had ample opportunity. With all three motive, means, and opportunity
present, we have a legal proof Annie Reeves filed false charges against Tom Kelly.
Statement of incompetent Council: Tom’s attorney should have explained the motive, means, and opportunity providing a legal proof
Annie Reeves filed false charges.
16 ) Council failed to tell jury about the sack- up mother Annie’s lying which could contribute to encouraging ’s lies.
Kelly has a stepmother who is capable of lying when it suits her purpose.
Pretrial information shows Annie invented testimony by Tom Jr.
“she reads a portion of the DA’s report of slanderous lies made by Annie Reaves and Thomas A Kelly Which Thomas A Kelly denies,
even saying He didn't make theses statements when interviewed by investigating detectives on the day of first complaint.”
(email from Tom Sr. to lawyer on 17 Aug 2006)
Statement of reasonable doubt: If Annie has lied about the testimony of her apparent spouse, she is capable of lying. Could she be
lying about the whole thing? Was she coached into believability by the DA as easily as ?
Statement of Incompetent Council: Tom’s attorney should have laid this lie of Annie’s out for everyone to see.
17) Council failed to mention how Tom A. Jr’s disrespect for authority may lead to his cooperation against his dad in this
case.
Kelly has a dad who exhibits a classic preacher’s kid disrespect for authority by having kids w/o marriage.
Although Tom Sr. was not an ordained pastor, he started several home churches over the years. Tom Jr. was aware of his dad’s faith
enough to call him “an old Jew” in my presence. Sadly Tom Jr. had a preacher’s kid’s disrespect for authority by having his kids
without marriage.
Statement of reasonable doubt: Is it reasonable to assume someone with proven disrespect for authority would obey the law in this
matter where his father stands accused? Could he resent the fact his parents saddled him with his kids to avoid abuse?
Statement of Incompetent Council: Tom’s attorney should have exposed his son’s disrespect for authority to the jury beyond simply
not wanting his children.
18) Council failed to adequately explain to the jury how ’s sexual knowledge came from pornography and not Tom Sr.
Kelly had transference of sexual images from video tape to alleged sexual behavior of granddad.
A pom tape collected by police then returned (see item 22) has video images which portray the very things accuses her
granddad of doing to her. The brief exposure to that tape before Tom found out and stopped her from watching it may explain most of
her intimate descriptions of Tom’s anatomy and behavior. She learned from it which provided food for her imagination to develop
more accurate lies.
Statement of reasonable doubt: If saw part of a pom tape in her grandpa’s house, could she associate that material with her
grandpa especially when he showed up-to stop her watching?
Statement of Incompetent Council: Tom’s attorney should have expressed greater emphasis on the ability of to transfer pom
fantasy onto the reality of her grandpa’s shocking interruption to her viewing.
19) Council failed to explain or demonstrate how easy it is to create false memories in .
Kelly had false memories created by suggestions and expectations of interviewers from Annie to police to DA.
According to Making Memories video at http:// www .accused .com / library /ciient . vidsJitml it is very easy to get completely different
reactions by simply asking a child the same question twice. Constantly asking the witness even non -leading questions by Annie,
Police, and DA would have produced a spectrum of responses-as it did on the witness stand covered in item 7). Subtle key words
- - -
indicated which false response was desired. And in a friendly environment would even create new lies integrating material
from various sources to not get in trouble. Annie could have simply asked a few key questions daily over two years of pre-
trial work to keep the lie active and in memory .
Statement of reasonable doubt: Creating false memories in young children is so easy, repeating a question will do it. We hope
education reduces this gullibility as they get older. Is it possible most words against Tom by were implanted not by rehearsing
a script but by asking questions repeatedly with subconscious cues such as strengthening or withdrawing love showing the desired
response?
Statement of Incompetent Council: Tom’s attorney should have followed the DA’s example of coaching the witness by doing some of
her own to demonstrate to the jury how easy it was to mislead the witness into lying for approval .
20) Council failed to mention the love of ’s grandpa as instrumental in working toward the cure from many
psychological illnesses.
Kelly was diagnosed about age three with autism, spectrum disorder, aspergers disease, post traumatic stress disorder,
oppositional defiance syndrome, and possible reactionary disorder. She heard voices in her head seeing colors in her brain.
It isn’t known if these disorders were from just abuse, a reaction to the cocktail of psychoactive drugs she was prescribed, or a
combination. We do know the from about 3.5 on to age 10 she seems to have improved, with the exception of her falsehoods about
Tom which can be explained by item 3) above. It seems Tom & Lily helped extract from a psychologically harmful
environment and helped love her back to near normal but the step mother has been using her against Tom.
Statement of reasonable doubt: Could Kelly still be experiencing some residual effects or flashbacks due to her earlier years on
drugs? Did she develop a pattern of unrestrained lying back then which carries forward to today? Could that have led to a false
conviction?
Statement of Incompetent Council: Tom’s attorney should have explained to the jury how his role was crucial or at least significant in
helping to both escape from prior abuse and supplying love needed to move on from disruptive psychological patterns to
normal behavior.
21 ) Council failed to enter a motion to delay the trial until the judge with experience in the case returned from vacation.
Court had different pre-trial and trial judges making trial judge less informed and less likely to accept motions to acquit.
Judge Matias. Who was assigned to the trial 2 wks before the court date, [... ]
Judge Brownhill who listened to over 2 years of pretrial testimony, conveniently took a vacation during the trial.
(statement of Kathy A Zimmerman, June 12, 2008)
Statement of reasonable doubt: If a judge has heard everything for 2 years, might there be more response to a motion to acquit than
from one who has only 2 weeks experience with the case?
Statement of Incompetent Council: Tom’s attorney should have at least discussed the options with her client.
22) Council failed to reject jurors that had prior knowledge of the parties: defense client or the prosecution DA and clients.
Court accepted jurors with conflict of interest who stated it wouldn’t affect their decision - such are often rejected.
Every time I’ve been interviewed for jury duty at every level city, state, and federal, my small experience of being run into from
behind by a car while I was on my bicycle which resulted in temporary unconsciousness but no trial, has been used as a reason to
release me despite my statement that it wouldn’t affect my decision. In my personality, the prejudices of prior meetings with people
would cany' more weight than an unrelated accident. Thus in my opinion the court did a disservice to the trial by accepting jurors
such as John Mattingly, who attends Catholic church with DA Ron Brown. Another had a past association with a Kelly.
Statement of reasonable doubt: Consider a past association may have parted on good terms or bad - regardless of protestations that it
wouldn’t affect their decision, is there reasonable doubt that it might in some circumstances? Perhaps commitment to not letting prior
knowledge influence a verdict may cause the juror to take a more jaded view of their past associate and judge more harshly than a
truly unknown juror.
Statement of Incompetent Council: Tom’s attorney should have rejected several jurors on the basis of prior knowledge of the parties
23) Council failed to find a way around the State’s suppression of evidence, which could have simply been done by purchasing
a new copy of the porn tape.
State suppressed evidence by returning pom tape which had everything accused Tom of doing to her.
“The police took two pom tapes during a search of our home. They also took 27 VHS tapes which contained no pom and 8mm home
videos which contained no pom. Before the trial these tapes were returned to the defense. They were picked up at the Clatsop County
Sheriffs Department by my wife Lily Kelly. When we went through the tapes we notices that they had returned one of the two pom
tapes. Which we thought was odd. On the pom tape they returned was every thing Kelly said I did to her. My lawyer told us
-because this tape had left the custody of the State it couldn be
't used as a defense of why knew these things. We feel it was
given back on purpose to keep it out of evidence in the trial.” (From Tom’s written defense statement)
Statement of reasonable doubt: The verdict may have been changed by showing the suppressed pom tape to the jury.
Statement of Incompetent Council: Tom’s attorney ignored key evidence because it was returned by the state instead of finding a legal
means of introducing it. Looking for the publisher / distributor might have produced a new copy and if not, searching for another
copy from a source of used tapes should have produced a copy that was not “tainted” with the possibility of post return editing, and
she should have found a means of introducing that “clean” copy into trial evidence. Considering the importance of this evidence, the
failure indicates extreme incompetence.
24) Council failed to obtain a change of venue upon Tom ’s request.
“I am asking you again Susan for a change of venue. I realize you might feel comfortable dealing with them ,
but it will cost me my life in so doing, for they are.” (email from Tom to his attorney Tue, 22 May 2007 17:05:32)
Statement of reasonable doubt: The verdict may have been completely different in another county.
Statement of incompetent Council: Tom's attorney should have obeyed her client’s important request.
25) Council failed to detect the need for a change of DA and do the work to file for it
Elected DA Joshua Marquis has made public statements, magazine articles, and website entries against Actual Innocence statistics
proving 20%-30% of all people in prison are actually innocent. The demented failure to conceive of the possibility that police
sometimes target the wrong person shows the accused should definitely flee his domain. Former DA, Steven Gerttula filed against
every one of the Clatsop DA’s in order to protect his client from their guilty bias.
Statement of reasonable doubt: The prosecution may have been less aggressive or even dismissed the case with an unbiased DA.
Statement of Incompetent Council: Tom’s attorney should have done the diligent research to learn of the County’s strong prosecutorial
bias, learned how to file a block against all the local DAs, and filed to get an outside DA.
26 ) Council failed to encourage Tom to speak in his own defense.
Thomas M. Kelly is a better public speaker than his attorney which she should have recognized in dealing with him for 2 years.
Instead she discouraged Tom from speaking warning how the DA would twist his words to make him look bad.
Statement of reasonable doubt: Might the jury have been persuaded by the full faith and confidence of a man who has spoken several
home churches into being, of which at least one still meets?
Statement of Incompetent Council: Tom’s attorney should have encouraged her client to speak and if the DA started to twist his words
she should have objected at every occurrence.
27) Council failed to document DA’s incompetence, speculations, and lies to the Oregon State Bar.
Mr. Scott A. Morrill, Assistant General Counsel, Client Assistance Office, Oregon State Bar cited failures of the Defense and Judge to
report the DA’s speculative lies as a reason for initially rejecting my complaint about his behavior.
Statement of reasonable doubt: Who would expect incompetent council to do due diligence to complain about errors not even noticed?
Statement of Incompetent Council: The councilor’s failure to object during the trial or complain afterward about the DA’s egregious
lies implies doing less than her full duty.
28) Council failed to document her own incompetence.

Former DA Steve Gerttula said the defendant complaining about incompetent council is his second best chance. Since that is an
established precedent, a councilor serving her client’s best interests should document her own incompetence prior to the appeal. It
shouldn’t be my job.
Statement of reasonable doubt: Would the client be given an even more complete Incompetence Of Council Report than this one if
Council does her duty?
Statement of Incompetent Council: Failure to write her own incompetence report implies not serving her client’s best interests.
Message Page 1 of 1
Scott n/lorril!
To : Overcomer Man
Subject: RE: Tom Kelly 's Attorney and DA Complaint Update
Mr. Fraser ,
We received your FTR CD and have added it to the file i do not have any contact information for anyone at the
,
CJF who can provide interactive responses.
Sincerely
Scott A. Morrill
Oregon State Bar
P. O. Box 231935
Tigard , OR 97281 -1935
503.431 . 6344
Fax: 503.684 .1366
Original Message
From: Overcomer Man [mailto:overcomer .man@ gmail.com]
Sent : Thursday, August 07, 2008 10 : 46 AM
To: Scott Morrill
Subject : Tom Kelly ' s Attorney and DA Complaint Update
Mr . Morrill ,
I am sending a FTR CD of the Sentencing to amend my complaint(s). Basically DA Brown

continuted his lies after being made aware of them both by you and me sending letters to him .
Tom's lawyer acted much better at the Sentencing than at the Closing.
I ' ve reported the Judge's behavior including foiling to complain to the Bar about both attorney 's to
the Judical commission you previously referred me to. However I haven't heard a word from
them even to acknowledge receipt of my complaint. Have you an email address of your
counterpart who can provide interactive responses?
Thanks,
Kirk Fraser
8/11 /2008
Message Page 1 of 1
Scott Morriii
To: Overcomer Man

Subject: RE : DA Mob Boss
Mr . Fraser ,
Your e-mail has been added to our file .
Sincerely
Scott A . Morrill
Oregon State Bar
P . O . Box 231935
Tigard , OR 97281 -1935
503.431 . 6344
Fax: 503.684 . 1366
Original Message
.
From: Overcomer Man [mailto:overcomer man @ gmail.com ]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 10 : 38 AM
To: Scott Morrill
Subject: DA Mob Boss
Mr . Morrill,
If a DA lying is a crime then Astoria DA boss Joshua Marquis is a mob boss of lying with
published articles against innocence (the thought that some people targeted by police are actually
innocent) with hands in many areas, local, state, and national. The judge used to work for
Marquis. Here's a link to Marquis' websites, http://coastda.com /
If you can print this and add it to my complaint , great ! If not , let me know to send a paper copy.
Sincerely ,
Kirk Fraser
8/11/2008
Oregon Bar
July 9 , 2008
Ronald Brown
Attorney at Law
Clatsop County DA ' s Office
749 Commercial
P. O. Box 149
Astoria, OR 97103
Re : Ronald Brown ( Kirk W. Fraser )
Dear Mr. Brown :
Enclosed is correspondence we have received from Kirk Fraser in connection with his
concerns about your conduct . As you know, we dismissed Mr . Fraser’s complaint because
we did not find that any ethical violation had occurred . However, in this most recent letter,
Mr. Fraser expresses his intent to appeal that decision .
Please review the enclosure; if there is any additional information you wish to have us
consider regarding this matter, please provide it no later than July 23, 2008 . Please address
your response to me.
This matter will then be submitted to General Counsel for further review. After
General Counsel has reviewed the matter, we will notify you and Mr. Fraser of the action
taken.
~
Very truly yours,

/s/ Scott A. Morrill
Scott A. Morrill
Extension 344
SAM/ jmm
Enclosure
cc: Kirk W. Fraser
0801321
03al
16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, PO Box 231935 , Tigard , Oregon 97281-1935
( 503) 620 - 0222 toll - free in Oregon (800) 452 -8260 fax ( 503) 684-1366 www.osbar.org
350 NE 6th
nU; Clatskanie, OR 97016
E [] ¥E ^ July 3, 2008
Disciplinary Counsel’s Office m
u u
JUL 7 2008 ^
Oregon State Bar
P.O. Box 231935
Tigard, OR 97281-1935 OREGON STATE BAR
CLIENT ASSISTANCE OFFICE
Disciplinary Counsel:
The enclosed materials plus those sent previously to Mr. Morrill are evidence for this complaint against
Clatsop County DA Ron Brown consisting of:
1) This letter 5) 6 FTR CD’s
2) Revised Letter to Judge requesting mistrial 6) Daily Astorian front page story May 29
3) Mistrial Report 7) Earlier letter to Judge requesting mistrial
4) Preliminary Misconduct Report 8) letter to Mr. Morrill and his response
Three things concern me in Mr. Morrill’s response:

1. His accurate assessment of my opinion that the DA fooled the jury was followed in the next paragraph
by a wild leap to declaring it doesn’t warrant further investigation with zero evidence supporting his
decision, with no specific treatment of the DA’s many lies or any deeper analysis as enclosed.
2. Mr. Morill refused to identify in my trial analysis or provide a hypothetical example of any lie he would
prosecute. His email definition from Black's Law Dictionary that defines lie on page 831 as, "an untruth
deliberately told; the uttering or action of that which is false for the purpose of deceiving; intentional
misstatement," fits every lie I identified. Yet he wildly leaps to concluding the DA innocent of
intentionally deceiving the jury. This is evidence of not taking my complaint adequately seriously as
needed to determine its truth.
3. The incident of DA coaching the witness Mr. Morrill called confusion, nervousness, and stress when
that kind of event (pretrial) resulted in a charge count requiring 166 years minimum. When a person’s
life is at stake mere hand waving about confusion, nervousness, and stress is insufficient to justify any
length of sentence. As explained in the enclosed, the witness gave 3 different occurrence counts, of
which two are obviously false. Could all three be false? The DA’s failure to investigate that makes his
entire testimony intentional deception.
To make my issue with Mr. Morrill’s response more clear, let me borrow his style for a moment:
The Oregon State Bar receives complaints against member attorneys, sends copies to said attorney, and if
warranted conducts investigations into attorney practices. We conclude the bar never has to investigate since
you always find your paid membership honest. Now we appreciate you need to appear to justify your income
by responding and that Mr. Brown is fortunate to have such motivated peers at the local bar which will support
his every wrongdoing. Mr. Brown’s job was to suppress evidence and lie for the state and he did his duty quite
professionally. We feel you don’t understand Truth at all and the role it should play in every trial.
Mr. Morrill’s response inspired me to write the analysis found at:

http:// LiT: . ;nnefH ohiti
,. !
-
c o n i / click item titled Fix Broken Legal System Free Tom Kelly
In it I reduce such witch-hunt trials to mere plays where the stronger actor rule’s people’s lives Should attorneys with no
more morals than actors have the job of ruling people’s lives? I hope your response inspires more hope in the legal
system.
Sincerely,
Kirk W. Fraser
Mistrial Report On State v. Kelly Case 06-1238
1) Kelly had access to pornography in her parent’s home and parents who developed websites with porn links.
May 27, 2008 11:22:26 AM DA said It’s about motives, asked if any pornography in house there is no evidence, they’d have to lie
The Truth: Pom on their website profiles means there is pom on the computer(s) in their house (possibly from start of relationship).
See: Tom Jr. http:/7 profiles. yahoo.com / l:1 yingfish 52 (cool link to www. penishol. com )
See: Anne http: // profiles. yahoo.com / plzernlace (cool link to www.saiinsiippers.com )
Statement of reasonable doubt: Since the DA’s very emphatic claim that they’d have to lie to say they had porn in their home is
provably a lie by the DA, it is reasonable to assume the DA used other lies to support his case.
2) Keiiy was evaluated by experts as telling huge whopper lies and wasn’t asked if she was doing it on the stand.
May 22, 2008 4:22:19 PM Psych . Christine Arthur - She told the whoppers, lies no one could believe and it went on and on.
The absence of asking if she was lying now on the stand reflects badly on the defense and both lawyers’ pursuit of the truth.
Statement of reasonable doubt: Is it possible that might have confessed she made the whole thing up if she were simp ly and
directly asked? Without Anne present?
3) Kelly fits the classic profile of a child who will do anything to make her second home work.
A System Out of Balance video at http:// www.accused .com / library /client. vids. html 33:35 into recording
“ A long campaign of subconscious programming is more effective than overt brainwashing. It destroys the bond between the ex-
spouse and child.”
This divorce scenario sounds like it describes the tug of war relationship between Tom and Annie as partial parents to the child.
Annie succeeded in destroying ’s love for Tom enough so she changed from a past testimony that she loved him to saying on
the witness stand that she didn’t love him.
A System Out of Balance video at http://www.accused .com / nbrary/cllent. vids. html 34:00 into recording
“A child who has a basic psychological bond with one parent that is stronger than that with the hated parent will do anything to
maintain that bond between the loved parent and the child. Remember the child feels they were once abandoned by the hated parent
when the divorce occurred. The child does not want to be abandoned a second time by taking sides against the loved parent. They
will do anything to maintain that bond with the loved parent. One of the ways this is done is by making complaints against the hated
parent. The child then gathers support from the loved parent. The child is fearful of expressing love for the hated parent for fear that
it will displease the loved parent. The complaints start out as minor complaints but when the child custody battle becomes ferocious
and the small complaints escalate into accusations of child abuse.”
was in this scenario more than any proposed by the DA. There was an unwritten custody battle between grandpa Tom who
loved and her new step-mom who she saw every day. The mom fine-tuned her psychological warfare as attacked her
dad Tom Jr. with false accusations of hitting her with a stick to attacking her grandpa with false accusations of sex abuse.
Statement of reasonable doubt: Could the charges be just plain wrong? The motives for lying seem very strong.
4) Kelly was coached pre-trial, and on the witness stand by the DA proving her susceptibility to coaching.
Proof of coaching the girl is available by comparing the pre-trial documentation with her trail testimony.
Interview between Det. Kristen Hanthorn and Elaine Kelly on June 1, 2006 - Date of Tom's arrest.
HANTHORN: I can give you her exact words; She said, "The balls are gushy and the middle is hard and the top is soft."
ELAINE: You know what? Right there, He can't get an erection. He's been humm,
350 NE 6th
June 30, 2008
Cindee S. Matyas
1010 Duane Street, Suite 201
Astoria, OR 97103
Judge Matyas:
RE: Friend of Court Brief; Request For Mistrial & Acquittal or Reduced Sentence On State V . Thomas M. Kelly, Case 06-1238
There were serious procedural errors or misconduct that resulted in an unfair trial in State V. Kelly , Case 06-1238 based on the
following facts which will be supported in the enclosed mistrial report.
1) Kelly had access to pornography in her parent’s home and parents who developed websites with pom links.
2) Kelly was evaluated by experts as telling huge whopper lies and wasn’t asked if she was doing it on the stand.
3) Kelly fits the classic profile of a child who will do anything to make her second home work.
5) Kelly was abused in her biological mother’s custody before in custody of dad and visitations to her grandparents.
6) Tom Kelly was voted guilty on charges that have a 60% false accusation rate, worse than random guessing.
7) Tom Kelly was prosecuted with increased charge counts due to coaching of the accusing child.
8) Tom Kelly had incompetence of counsel, failed to make proper objections and presentations at trial and closing statement.
9) Tom Kelly had sperm heads which could have been 25 years old used as evidence within the shorter trial time window.
10) Tom Kelly had love with no intent of arousing or gratifying the lust or passions or sexual desires of himself or .
11 ) Tom Kelly was prosecuted with speculation and outright lies which are stated illegal by the Oregon Bar.
12 ) Tom Kelly had no prior sexual molestation accusations in over 28 years of church starting.
13) Tom Kelly did not receive the due process of being presumed innocent until proven guilty.
14) Kelly has a stepmother who had a vicarious need to punish someone for her sex abuse and a financial motive
15) Kelly has a stepmother who is capable of lying when it suits her purpose.
16) Kelly has a dad who exhibits a classic preacher’s kid disrespect for authority by having kids w/o marriage.
17) Kelly had transference of sexual images from video tape to alleged sexual behavior of granddad.
18) Kelly had false memories created by suggestions and expectations of interviewers from Annie to police to DA.
19) Kelly was diagnosed about age three with autism, spectrum disorder, aspergers disease, post traumatic stress disorder,
oppositional defiance syndrome, and possible reactionary disorder. She heard voices in her head seeing colors in her brain.
20) Court had different pre-trial and trial judges making trial judge less informed and less likely to accept motions to acquit.
21) Court accepted jurors with conflict of interest who stated it wouldn’t affect their decision - such are often rejected.
22) State suppressed evidence by returning pom tape which had everything accused Tom of doing to her.
Judge, I’m asking you to retry the case yourself at your desk considering truths not expressed in the trial to justify a decision to acquit.
watching the first four continuing legal education videos at http://www.accused.com /librarv/ incle.vids.htinl and the first for clients
at http:// 81SCCt
To rapidly prove this request has merit, start with a major prosecution lie you can check immediately on your computer.
On May 27, 2008 11:22:26 AM DA said It’s about motives, asked if any pornography in house there is no evidence, they’d have to lie
The Truth: Pom on their website profiles means there is pom on the computers) in their house (possibly from start of relationship).
See: Tom Jr. http:// profiles.vahoo.com /11 yingt1sh 52 (cool link to www.peimhot.com' )
See: Anne *
- ^ / / profiles,vahoo.com / plzernlace (cool link to www.satinslippers.com )

that Mr, Kelly has been convicted of molesting his granddaughter withoufprevious accusation from members of home churches he
—
Sincerely ,
Kirk W. Fraser
ELAINE: Yes, He's not been able to get an erection.
claimed on the stand her alleged abuse only happened 2 or 3 times over the whole time with grandparents ( May 21, 2008
able to get her to say more than 20 times (4:39:35 ). Is that easy to coach? That credibility would argue the whole case with all
5) Kelly was abused In her biological mother’s custody before in custody of dad and visitations to her grandparents .
Statement of reasonable doubt: If was violently abused from birth to 3.5, is it likely traumatic reactions could include false
A System Out of Balance video at http:// www .accused .com / library /ciient. vids. html 01 :00 into recording
.
was coached by the DA on the witness stand to move her count of occurrences up from 2 - 3 to over 20 According to Tom
noted in the accompanying Preliminary Misconduct Report for DA Brown. Her closing statement was so weak, parts of it were barely
Time was spent at trial start to redact people praising on tape which was a part of the pre-trial coaxing that may have
-
has been alive. It’s possible these were deposited by non sexual activity such as nocturnal emission and carried there in Tom’s
350 NE 6th
June 30, 2008
Cindee S. Maty as
Astoria, OR 97103
Judge Matyas:
RE: Friend of Court Brief; Request For Mistrial & Acquittal or Reduced Sentence On State V. Thomas M. Kelly, Case 06-1238
There were serious procedural errors or misconduct that resulted in an unfair trial in State V. Kelly , Case 06-1238 based on the
following facts which will be supported in the enclosed mistrial report.
1) Kelly had access to pornography in her parent’s home and parents who developed websites with pom links.
2) Kelly was evaluated by experts as telling huge whopper lies and wasn’t asked if she was doing it on the stand.
3) Keliy fits the classic profile of a child who will do anything to make her second home work.
5) Kelly was abused in her biological mother’s custody before in custody of dad and visitations to her grandparents.
11 )Tom Kelly was prosecuted with speculation and outright lies which are stated illegal by the Oregon Bar.
12) Tom Kelly had no prior sexual molestation accusations in over 28 years of church starting.
13) Tom Kelly did not receive the due process of being presumed innocent until proven guilty.
14) Kelly has a stepmother who had a vicarious need to punish someone for her sex abuse and a financial motive
16) Kelly has a dad who exhibits a classic preacher’s kid disrespect for authority by having kids w/o marriage.
19) Kelly was diagnosed about age three with autism, spectrum disorder, aspergers disease, post traumatic stress disorder,
oppositional defiance syndrome, and possible reactionary' disorder. She heard voices in her head seeing colors in her brain .
21) Court accepted jurors with conflict of interest who stated it wouldn’t affect their decision - such are often rejected.
22) State suppressed evidence by returning pom tape which had everything accused Tom of doing to her.
Judge, I’m asking you to retry the case yourself at your desk considering truths not expressed in the trial to justify a decision to acquit.
watching the first four continuing legal education videos at http:// www.accused.com / library / mcle.vids.html and the first for clients
at http \ Then review the trial with the list above to see how they each fit the truth.
To rapidly prove this request has merit, start with a major prosecution lie you can check immediately on your computer.
On May 27, 2008 11:22:26 AM DA said It’s about motives, asked if any pornography in house there is no evidence, they’d have to lie
The Truth: Pom on their website profiles means there is pom on the computer(s) in their house (possibly from start of relationship).
See: Tom Jr. http:// g3 rofifes.vahoo.com / flyiiigfish 52 (cool link to w w w. penishot coni)
See: Anne http:// profgies.yahoo.com / p 8 zeriiiIace (cool link to www.satinslippers.com )
that Mr. Kelly has been convicted of moIestingTiis granddaughter without previous -accusation from members of home churches he
—
Sincerely,
Kirk W. Fraser
He's not been able to get an erecbun for a good year or so.
HANTHORN: So you guys have sexuai relations then?
ELAINE: Yes, He's not been able to get an erection.
claimed on the stand her alleged abuse only happened 2 or 3 times over the whole time with grandparents (May 21, 2008
able to get her to say more than 20 times (4:39:35 ). Is that easy to coach? That credibility would argue the whole case with all
5) Kelly was abused In her biologiea a mother’s custody before In custody of dad and visitations to her grandparents.
Statement of reasonable doubt: If was violently abused from birth to 3.5, is it likely traumatic reactions could include false
A System Out of Balance video at http:// www .accused .com / 1 i brary/client . vids. html 01:00 into recording
7 ) Tom Kelly was prosecuted with increased charge counts due to coaching of the accusing child .
was coached by the DA on the witness stand to move her count of occurrences up from 2 - 3 to over 20. According to Tom
8) Tom Kelly had Incompetence of counsel , failed to make proper objections and presentations at trial and closing statement.
noted in the accompanying Preliminary Misconduct Report for DA Brown . Her closing statement was so weak, parts of it were barely
Time was spent at trial start to redact people praising on tape which was a part of the pre-trial coaxing that may have
has been alive. It’s possible these were deposited by non-sexual activity such as nocturnal emission and carried there in Tom’s
-
fall on a cushion which eventually bounce under the cushion with repeated sitting and stanumg over time. There is no evidence the
sperm were deposited during ’s presence in the house let alone in any direct encounter with her.
Statement of reasonable doubt: Since there is no proof Tom’s sperm were deposited in the manner alleged by the DA, is it actually
evidence of a crime or the first case I’ve heard of where a DA uses DNA to lie to a jury?
Loving grandparents had removed from her mother’s abuse. Further expressions of love led to desire to rest on Tom’s
breast as disciple John rested on Jesus’ breast, out of love, not for sex. That love helped transition her from the abusive home she was
in which made her be diagnosed with many disorders, to a better life where psychoactive drugs weren’t needed.
Statement of reasonable doubt: Is it possible climbed up on her grandfather to rest there as an expression of love, much like a
pet will climb on its loving provider, instead of as an act of sexual perversion?
11) Tom Kelly was prosecuted with speculation and outright lies which are stated illegal by the Oregon Bar.
Although the Oregon State Bar declares lies as illegal behavior by a trial lawyer, the Bar being asked twice by email would not specify
what lies they would prosecute as distinct from normal trial behavior. The DA’s statements documented in the enclosed Preliminary
Misconduct Report are candidate lies.
Statement of reasonable doubt: When a person’s future freedom is on the line, should even the appearance of lying be an accepted
normal practice to convince a jury? If jury members vote influenced by a lie, isn’t the verdict also a lie?
12) Tom Kelly had no prior sexual molestation accusations in over 28 years of church starting.
Elected DA Josh Marquis admitted that Tom Kelly had no priors. Tom was in many people’s homes while starting churches in
-
Astoria, Clatskanie, Rainier, and Knappa so he had more opportunity than a shut in, recluse, or hermit yet he didn’t abuse the
hospitality.
Statement of reasonable doubt: Is it reasonable to think a person who kept himself sexually pure over years of church founding would
betray a member of his own family whom he loved enough to help save from abuse?
13 Tom Kelly did not receive the due process of being presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The legal processing system is broken since it allows DA’s to wildly accuse citizens in their opening statement before proving
anything and their peers at the local Bar support it. A much more civilized approach would be to say, “the state will work to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that” ... (list of alleged facts) instead of pretending the accusations immediately have standing as fact.
Statement of reasonable doubt: Since the DA stretched the presumption of innocence rule in his opening statement, it is reasonable to
assume he also stretches the law in other areas. Could enough stretching of the law frame a false verdict?
14) Kelly has a stepmother who had a vicarious need to punish someone for her sex abuse and a financial motive.
Motives for Annie Reeves to lie include: to stabilize relation with Tom Jr., vicarious punishment on her childhood abuser,
punishment to senior Kellys for not babysitting her own kids when having back pain , and future civil suit money. The intent for a
civil lawsuit against the defendant’s wife Lily has received a warning of since the trial from a person conversant with both sides.
Tommy tried to pawn children off to Tom and Lily as Annie threatened to leave. With this fabrication, realizes she can get
Annie's approval, that she did not have before. States Annie is her best friend now.
Statement of reasonable doubt: The keys to legal proof seem to be motive, means, and opportunity. Annie had moti ves. Her means
was subtle coaching of who had greater motives based on classic behavior to maintain a friendly loving parent relationship in
her life, and because Annie and live together Annie had ample opportunity. With all three motive, means, and opportunity
present, we have a legal proof Annie Reeves filed false charges against Tom Kelly.
Pretrial information shows Annie invented testimony by Tom Jr.

“she reads a portion of the DA's report of slanderous lies made by Annie Reaves and Thomas A Kelly Which Thomas A Kelly denies,
even saying He didn't make theses statements when interviewed by investigating detectives on the day of first complaint.”
(email from Tom Sr. to lawyer on 17 Aug 2006)
Statement of reasonable doubt: If Annie has lied about the testimony of her apparent spouse, she is capable of lying. Could she be
lying about the whole thing? Was she coached into believability by the DA as easily as ?
16) Kelly has a dad who exhibits a classic preacher’s kid disrespect for authority by having kids w /o marriage.
Although Tom Sr. was not an ordained pastor, he started several home churches over the years. Tom Jr. was aware of his dad’s faith
enough to call him “an old Jew” in my presence. Sadly Tom Jr. had a preacher’s kid’s disrespect for authority by having his kids
without marriage.
Statement of reasonable doubt: Is it reasonable to assume someone with proven disrespect for authority would obey the law in this
matter where his father stands accused? Could he resent the fact his parents saddled him with his kids to avoid abuse?
A pom tape collected by police then returned (see item 22) has video images which portray the very things accuses her
granddad of doing to her. The brief exposure to that tape before Tom found out and stopped her from watching it may explain most of
her intimate descriptions of Tom’s anatomy and behavior. She learned from it which provided food for her imagination to develop
more accurate lies.
Statement of reasonable doubt: If saw part of a pom tape in her grandpa’s house, could she associate that material with her
grandpa especially when he showed up to stop her watching?
According to Making Memories video at http:// www .acciised .com / librarv /client . vids. html it is very easy to get completely different
reactions by simply asking a child the same question twice. Constantly asking the witness even non-leading questions by Annie,
Police, and DA would have produced a spectrum of responses as it did on the witness stand covered in item 7). Subtle key words
indicated which false response was desired. And in a friendly environment would even create new lies integrating material
from various sources to not get in trouble. Annie could have simply asked a few key questions daily over two years of pre-
trial work to keep the lie active and in memory.
Statement of reasonable doubt: Creating false memories in young children is so easy, repeating a question will do it. We hope
education reduces this gullibility as they get older. Is it possible most words against Tom by were implanted not by rehearsing
a script but by asking questions repeatedly with subconscious cues such as strengthening or withdrawing love showing the desired
response?
19) Kelly was diagnosed about age three with autism, spectrum disorder, aspergers disease, post traumatic stress
disorder, voices in her head seeing colors in
her brain.
It isn’t known if these disorders were from just abuse, a reaction to the cocktail of psychoactive drugs she was prescribed, or a
combination. We do know the from about 3.5 on to age 10 she seems to have improved, with the exception of her falsehoods about
Tom which can be explained by item 3) above. It seems Tom & Lily helped extract from a psychologically harmful
environment and helped love her back to near normal but the step mother has been using her against Tom.
Statement of reasonable doubt: Could Kelly still be experiencing some residual effects or flashbacks due to her earlier years on
drugs? Did she develop a pattern of unrestrained lying back then which carries forward to today? Could that have led to a false—
conviction?
Judge Matias. Who was assigned to the trial 2 wks before the court date, [...]
Judge Brownhill who listened to over 2 years of pretrial testimony, conveniently took a vacation during the trial ,
(statement of Kathy A Zimmerman, June 12, 2008)
Statement of reasonable doubt: If a judge has heard everything for 2 years, might there be more response to a motion to acquit than
from one who has only 2 weeks experience with thexase?
21) Court accented jurors with conflict of interest who stated it wouldn’t affect their decision - such are often rejected.
Every time I’ve been interviewed for jury duty at every level city, state, and federal, my small experience of being run into from
behind by a car while I was on my bicycle which resulted in temporary unconsciousness but no trial, has been used as a reason to
release me despite my statement that it wouldn’t affect my decision. In my personality, the prejudices of prior meetings with people
would carry more weight than an unrelated accident. Thus in my opinion the court did a disservice to the trial by accepting jurors
such as John Mattingly, who attends Catholic church with DA Ron Brown. Another had a past association with a Kelly.
Statement of reasonable doubt: Consider a past association may have parted on good terms or bad - regardless of protestations that it
wouldn’t affect their decision, is there reasonable doubt that it might in some circumstances?
22) State suppressed evidence by returning porn tape which had everything accused Tom of doing to her.
“The police took two pom lanes during a search of our home. They also took 27 VMS tapes which contained no pom and 8mm home
videos which contained no pom. Before the trial these tapes were returned to the defense. They were picked up at the Clatsop County
Sheriffs Department by my wife Lily Kelly. When we went through the tapes we notices that they had returned one of the two pom
tapes. Which we thought was odd. On the pom tape they returned was every thing Kelly said I did to her. My iawyer toid us
because this tape had left the custody of the State it couldn't be used as a defense of why knew these things. We feel it was
given back on purpose to keep it out of evidence in the trial.” ( From Tom ’s written defense statement )
Statement of reasonable doubt: The verdict may have been changed by showing the suppressed pom tape to the jury.
Message Page 1 of 2
Scott Pwiorriii
To: Overcomer Man

Subject: RE: Vote of no confidence
Dear Mr . Eraser ,
Appeals of dismissals by the Client Assistance Office are handled by General Counsel as per Bar Rule 2.5(c ).
Mail intended for any department at the bar may be sent to the post office box noted below . We look forward to
receiving your appeal .
Sincerely
Scott A. Morrill
Oregon State Bar
P . O . Box 231935
Tigard , OR 97281 - 1935
503.431 .6344
Fax : 503.684.1366
Original Message
From: Overcomer Man [ mailto :overcomer.man@ gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9 : 46 AM
To: Scott Morrill
Subject: Vote of no confidence
Mr . Scott Morrill ,
Your decision to fail to provide an answer to my question gives me no confidence that you or your
boss will honestly evaluate my appeal . The Black ' s dictionary definition you provided fits all the
lies I meticulously identified and more. You did not obey that definition when conducting your
analysis.
7/2/2008
Message Page 2 of 2
Further, I take a cue from Jesus' assignment of your family name More-ili to presume that you
have not overcome it in your spiritual life and you will continue to function in your office
providing more ill to anyone seeking help from the Bar . And like the Clatsop County DA' s office
which is run by elected DA Joshua Marquis who has published magazine and website articles
against the findings of the Innocence Project to justify his jack booted approach to law
enforcement claiming Ron Brown is one of the best DA’s in the business, I suspect your boss
"General Council " supports your professional illness too.
Therefore my next appeal will be addressed not to you or the General Council but to the
Disciplinary Counsel ' s Office. If there is a seperate post office box number for that office, please
provide it. You may forward my CD ' s and other materials to that office to await the arrival of my
appeal .
Sincerely,
Kirk W. Fraser
7/2/2008
Message Page 1 of 2
Scott morriii
To: Overcomer Man

Subject: BROWN ( Fraser )
Dear Mr . Fraser ,
Please refer to my 6/24/ 08 letter for an explanation about why the conduct you reported did not appear to me to
be dishonest conduct.
You may address your appeal letter to me . We look forward to receiving your letter.
Sincerely
Scott A . Morrill
Oregon State Bar
P.O. Box 231935
Tigard , OR 97281-1935
503.431 .6344
Fax : 503.684 . 1366
Original Message
From: Overcomer Man [mailto : overcomer .man@ gmail.com ]
Sent: Thursday, June 26,-2008-3: 40 PM
To: Scott Morrill
Subject: Waiting on your response
Mr . Morrill ,
I am waiting on your reply to the following question which will likely impact my letter to General
Council :
6/30/2008
Message Page 2 of 2
If you do not consider anything I documented as a lie by the DA, what would you consider
as a lie?
Also, should I address the letter to you or General Council at the same address?
Sincerely ,
Kirk Fraser
6/30/2008
Message Page 1 of 3
Scott Morrill
To: Overcomer Man

Subject: RE: BROWN (Fraser)
Dear Mr. Fraser:
The Client Assistance Office ( CAO ) is responsible for reviewing concerns regarding Oregon
lawyers. Under Bar Rule of Procedure 2.5, CAO determines whether there is sufficient evidence to
support a reasonable belief that misconduct may have occurred warranting a referral to Disciplinary
Counsel’s Office for further investigation. Misconduct means a violation of the rules of
professional conduct and applicable statutes that govern lawyer conduct in Oregon. I am declining
to provide you with a hypothetical example of what would be considered a lie . However, you may
refer to the Black ' Law Dictionary that defines lie on page 831 as, "an untruth deliberately told ; the
uttering or action of that which is false for the purpose of deceiving; intentional misstatement."
I hope that this information is helpful.
Sincerely,
Scott A. Morrill
Oregon State Bar
P.O. Box 231935
Tigard, OR 97281-1935
503.431 .6344
Fax : 503.684 .1366
Original Message
From: Overcomer Man [mailto:overcomer.man@ gmail.com ]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 8:44 AM
6/30/2008
Message Page 2 of 3
To: Scott Morrill

Subject: Re: BROWN (Fraser)
Mr. Morrill ,
Please answer the question I asked instead of the question you answered . To repeat:
If you do not consider anything 1 documented as a lie by the DA , what would you consider as a
Sincerely,
Kirk Fraser
On 6/30/08, Scott Morrill <SMorrill@,osbar.org> wrote :

Dear Mr. Fraser,
Please refer to my 6/24/08 letter for an explanation about why the conduct you reported did not appear
to me to be dishonest conduct.
You may address your appeal letter to me . We look forward to receiving your letter
Sincerely ,
Scott A. Morrill
Oregon State Bar
P . O. Box 231935
Tigard , OR 97281-1935
503.431 .6344
Fax : 503.684.1366
Original Message
From: Overcomer Man [mailto: overcomer.man@Qmail.coml
,
Sent: Thursday, June 26 42008 3:40 PM
-
6/30/2008
Message Page 3 of 3
To: Scott Morrill

Subject: Waiting on your response
Mr . Morrill ,
I am waiting on your reply to the following question which will likely impact my letter to
General Council:
If you do not consider anything I documented as a lie by the DA, what would you
consider as a lie?
Also, should I address the letter to you or General Council at the same address?
Sincerely ,
Kirk Fraser
6/30/2008
Oregon State Bar
June 24, 2008
KirkW . Fraser
350 NE 6 th
Re : Ronald Brown ( Kirk W. Fraser )
Dear Mr. Fraser:
The Oregon State Bar has received your complaint regarding Ronald Brown, the chief
deputy district attorney who prosecuted your friend , Thomas Kelly. The Client Assistance
Office (CAO) is responsible for reviewing concerns regarding Oregon lawyers. Under Bar
Rule of Procedure 2.5, CAO determines whether there is sufficient evidence to support a
reasonable belief that misconduct may have occurred warranting a referral to Disciplinary
Counsel’s Office for further investigation . Misconduct means a violation of the rules of
professional conduct and applicable statutes that govern lawyer conduct in Oregon .
You have expressed concern about the conduct of Mr. Brown during his prosecution
of Mr . Kelly. The gist of your concerns is that Mr. Brown misled the jury by lying to it ,
speculating, misinterpreting the evidence, and presenting imaginative scenarios. To
paraphrase, you feel that Mr . Brown obtained a guilty finding by fooling the jury.
We conclude that there is no basis to warrant a referral to Disciplinary Counsel’s
Office for further investigation. I would like to first note that we appreciate your concern
and that Mr. Kelly is fortunate to have such a motivated friend . However, we feel that you
have misunderstood the adversarial process and Mr. Brown’s role in it.
The excerpts from the trial you provided are taken from the opening statements,
closing statements, cross examination of an expert witness and motions for the judge. One
brief excerpt is from Mr. Brown’s questioning of the victim, which does not change our
analysis in this matter.
Mr. Brown’s responsibility is ro rpprpcpnr rbp iru- - pcf s r> f fhp Sfafp r> f Qr^g^n He
pt
may not lie to the jury, personally vouch for the credibility of any witness or argue facts not
in evidence. However, he may argue, on his analysis of the evidence, for any position or
conclusion with respect to these issues . Mr. Kelly’s lawyer was expected to do the same and
from what I listened to, she did so. Lawyers (prosecutors and defense lawyers ) are also given
great leeway during opening statements , closing statements and arguments in support or in
opposition to motions to frame the case. Both sides are allowed to explain what they believe
16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, PO Box 231935, Tigard, Oregon 97281-1935
(503) 620 -0222 toll-free in Oregon (800) 452 -8260 fax (503) 684-1366 www.osbar.org
Kirk W. Fraser
June 24, 2008
Page 2
the evidence will show and then later argue what they believe it actually did show. The
information you provided indicates that Mr. Brown was arguing his position or conclusion
based on the evidence presented at this trial.
The excerpts I listened to also showed that Mr. Brown did not personally vouch for
the credibility of any witness. While he apparently argued that some witness statements were
more believable than others as supported by the evidence that is not misconduct . It is , in
fact, what both lawyers are expected to argue.
You made one other complaint I would like to discuss. You allege that Mr. Brown
coached the witness / victim . In support of that you note that she testified at one point that
the abuse only happened two or three times , but later testified that it happened more than
twenty times . This is not evidence that Mr . Brown coached her. It strikes us as evidence that
a young girl was confused or nervous as she was questioned in a very stressful setting. That
her answers were inconsistent does not indicate that Mr. Brown coached her.
Finally, we are struck by the fact that neither the judge nor Mr. Kelly's lawyer
complained about Mr. Brown’s conduct. Both are obligated to report misconduct by lawyers
that they witness . That they did not file complaints further convinces us that Mr. Brown
only argued the State’ position based on his analysis of the evidence.
Because we find no professional misconduct , we will take no further action on this
matter. If you disagree with this disposition , you may have the matter reviewed by General
Counsel, provided we receive your request for review in writing on or before July 8, 2008.
The decision of General Counsel is final.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Scott A. Morrill
Scott A. Morrill
Extension 344
SAM / jmm
cc w/ encl: Ronald Brown, Attorney at Law
0801321
02 p
350 NE 6th
June 16, 2008
Scott A. Morrill
Oregon State Bar
P.O. Box 231935
Tigard, OR 97281-1935 JUN 1 8 2008
503.431.6344 (direct line)
L..
si v;- orri 11@,osbar.org
Mr. Morrill,
RE: Misconduct Complaint on Clatsop County BA Ron Brown
The enclosed materials are the evidence for this complaint against Clatsop County DA Ron
Brown consisting of: 6 FTR CD’s, 1 copy of Daily Astorian front page story May 29, 1 letter
requesting mistrial, one Preliminary Misconduct Report. The designation Preliminary refers to
the fact that these instances of misconduct reported by an amateur should easily be expanded by
a professional.
Dozens of instances of lying, speculation, misinterpreting evidence in imagined scenarios

conjecture and opinions not identified in any way as what if possibilities to the jury but presented
or implied as facts are alleged with support by indexed times into the accompanying FTR
CD’s of State v. Thomas Kelly 06-1238. Occasionally unique forms of lying may be covered.
A major thrust of his lies were to deny the defendant due process of holding him innocent until
proven guilty by opening with accusations of guilt and sticking to them regardless of other
interpretations of the evidence. Perhaps the current court procedure of giving the prosecution both
opening and final closing should be changed.
I request prosecution to the fullest extend of the Bar’s rales which would sentence him consecutively as
he asked for innocent Tom Kelly to be sentenced. If possible this would sentence him to consecutive
periods of disbarment, say 6 months for each instance in each case you investigate. It would be poetic
justice if that were to equal 166 years.
Further, since his office in Clatsop County is ran by Joshua Marquis who has published materials in
denial of the findings of the book Actual Innocence and the Innocence Projects it spawned in many law
schools, I request full investigation of his cases looking for similar misconduct.
Sincerely,
&
Kirk W. Fraser
503-728-4894
Overcomer . man @ gma i 1 .com
350 NE 6th
June 17, 2008
Cindee S. Matyas
Astoria, OR 97103
Dear Ms. Matyas:
RE: Friend of the Court Request For Mistrial With Retrial Or Release On State V. Thomas M. Kelly, Case 06 1238 -
The trial audio contains dozens of lies based on speculations, imagined scenarios, conjecture, and opinions not fact which were
presented as or implied as facts to the jury. Many of these are obvious when looking at the case from a presumption of innocence.
There are a few where evidence directly contradicts the State’s position, two you can test yourself right now' with the aid of a
computer (See Misconduct Report May 27, 2008 11:22:26). Since DA Brown introduced provable lies, it is proper for you to
consider all his testimony not in the interests of truth in this case, the verdict wrong, and discontinue sentencing.
A few other trial highlights should be considered. If the DA were seeking the truth he would have not only asked about ’s
problems with lying and this case but he would have directly asked if she was lying right now about her grandpa. One of the
ongoing concerns in the DA’s opening through Dr. Little’s testimony to the DA’s final closing was motives for the child lying and
parent’s lying. Specific potential motives were not mentioned. Possible motives exist (See Misconduct Report May 20, 2008
5:07:24 and 5:07:36). The potential for a civil lawsuit against the defendant Lily has received a warning of since the trial from a
person familiar with both sides.
-
Proof of coaching the girl is available by comparing the pre trial documentation with her trail testimony.
Interview between Det. Kristen Hanthorn and Elaine Kelly on June 1 , 2006 - Date of Tom’s arrest.
HANTHORN: I can give you her exact words; She said, "The balls are gushy and the middle is hard and the top is soft."
ELAINE: You know what? Right there, He can't get an erection. He's been humm,
ELAINE: Yes, He’s not been able to get an erection.
instance of lying by coaching means there could be others. said she lies to not get in trouble (3:51:10). She talked because
her mom was being nice (4:12:31). Was she coached by all interviewers being nice?
claimed on the stand her alleged abuse only happened 2 or 3 times over the whole time with grandparents (May 21, 2008
able to get her to say more than 20 times (4:39:35). Is that easy to coach? That credibility would argue the whole case
The theatrics of the DA in his final closing before the jury (which is always selected for gullibility) failed to disclose the DNA
from sperm heads could have fallen out of his pants up to 25 years ago from non-sexual nocturnal emissions.
I’ve personally known Thomas M. Kelly since 1980 as a man of conscience who has started several home church meetings in
surrounding communities over the years. I’ve attended his meetings in Astoria, Rainier, Clatskanie, and Knappa. As far as I’m
aware there has never been a claim of this nature before. You may be aware that preacher’s kids are notorious for misbehavior and
Tom Jr. is no exception as obedient Christians marry before having kids.
-
Since the book Actual Innocence and the Innocence Projects in various law schools which it spawned claims 20% 30% of all
prisoners are innocent and there is enough hard evidence, soft evidence, and speculative refutation to completely overturn the
DA’s testimony, it seems more likely Mr. Kelly is innocent than guilty. So please do the right thing and release him either
permanently or for a retrial.
Sincerely,
Kirk W. Fraser
Preliminary Report of Misconduct by
Clatsop County DA Ron Brown
Case 06-1238 State v. Kelly
The preponderance of the DA’s statements in this case were lies consisting of speculative imagined scenarios and
opinions, very few identified as alleged, attributed to any witness or identified as what if possibilities but stated as facts
to the jury. The frequency of such statements leads me to suggest investigation into other cases by the DA and others
from his office to determine the scope of this culture of lies.
Of course direct name calling such as when he called Tom "evil" in final closing with only circumstantial evidence are
also plain lies. Note this report contains comments on time indexed statements which appear to be misconduct, not the
entire statements which may also cover other topics.
Date May 20, 2008

9:40:37 AM - 10:46:06 AM Misc.
11:15:33 AM - 12:10:48 AM Jury Interviews & Break Time
1:29:59 PM - 4:51:24 PM Jury Instructions & Interviews & Break Time
4:51:24 PM - 5:08:08 PM Prosecutor
4:51:29 PM Kelly is the victim in this case.
Misconduct: opinion as fact, did not say “alleged” victim.
4:54:34 PM Crimes occurred on Cedar Street.
Misconduct: opinion as fact, did not say “alleged” crimes.
4:55:13 PM Well if grandma was gone, got sexually abused.
Misconduct: lie to jury, speculation, imagined scenario
4:55:31 PM The defendant would sexually abuse down in the basement generally
Misconduct: lie to jury, speculation, imagined scenario, and cumulative repeat
4:55:49 PM Defendant would preoccupy Ireland with video games when sexually abusing his sister
4:56:39 PM She never puts any of those movies in herself, the defendant would show her those movies
Misconduct: lie to jury, speculation, imagined scenario
4:56:46 PM He would sit there and watch pornographic movies with his granddaughter to desensitize a child
Misconduct: lie to jury, speculation, expanding on imagined scenario, and cumulative repeat
4:57:04 PM So that’s what the defendant did, he would show pornographic movies
4:57:09 PM And eventually that led to him sexually abusing her
4:57:53 PM The defendant would commit sodomy, lick her vagina, cause her to have oral sex with him
Misconduct: lies to jury, speculation, imagined crimes and scenarios
4:58:10 PM He would get whisker bums on the inside of her legs
Misconduct: lie to jury, speculation and medically not possible without reverse bum
4:58:21 PM Thought reaction to wetting the bed ... but they were actually whisker bums
Misconduct: lie to jury, speculation, opinion not fact
4:58:34 PM He would mb his penis on her vagina, he actually tried to enter her and have intercourse
Misconduct: lie to jury, expanding on imagined scenario, opinion not fact, no medical damage
4:58:50 PM He had “him” suck his penis, he had “him” stroke his penis, until he eventually ejaculated
Misconduct: lie to juiy, imagined scenario, opinion not fact, “him” possible Freudian Slip!
4:58:56 PM “The Good Stuff’ is disparaged as a term for semen
Misconduct: misleads jury to view “the good stuff ’ as worse than term “semen”
(NAPA ads use “get the good stuff’ on TV)
4:59:35 PM He would touch her breasts WHICH DIDN’T EXIST AT THAT AGE
Misconduct: lie to jury, speculation, imagined scenario, opinion not fact
5:00:04 PM He would actually put cushion on ground and abuse her until he finally ejaculated
Misconduct: lie to jury, speculation, imagined scenario, opinion not actual fact
5:01:48 PM Crime lab said his semen was on 3 of those cushions, corroborating what ’s going to say
—
Misconduct: Semen could be 25 years old imagined scenario, corroboration opinion not fact
5:02:01 PM The defendant told her not to tell anybody and if she did the police would really hurt him bad.
Misconduct: mislead jury , no evidence, no specific topic, imagined scenario
5:02:21 PM He convinced her that she was a willing co-participant in this and she had guilt feelings about it
Misconduct: mislead jury, no evidence other than frequently lying witness, imagined scenario
5:02:32 PM She kept this inside from 2002 until 2006
Misconduct: lie to jury with no evidence, imagined scenario
5:04:28 PM Almost never any evidence - had he attempted actual intercourse there might have been evidence
Misconduct: lie to jury, contradicts claim at 4:58:34 of intercourse attempt.
5:07:24 PM Does Kelly have any kind of motive to lie in open court to get her grandfather in trouble?
Answer: Yes, bonding with Anne Reeves who had been abused, to reduce family instability
Misconduct: mislead jury into prejudice that has no such motive.
5:07:36 PM Look for whether Anne Reeves has any kind of motive to try to get the defendant in trouble.
Answer: Yes, to stabilize relation with Tom Jr., vicarious punishment on her abuser,
punishment to senior Kellys for not babysitting her other kids when having back pain,
and future civil suit money.
Misconduct: mislead jury into prejudice that Anne Reeves has no such motive.
5:08:10 PM - 5:09:35 PM Judge
Misconduct Summary
True justice presumes innocence until proven guilty. Repeatedly programming the jury over and over with
speculation, imagined scenarios and opinions without support of evidence or honest witnesses is not proof of guilt but
the cumulative programming effect often gets unjust wins for the state. The DA’s setup against motives is carried into
his final closing statement indicating inability to discover the truth with his speculations.
Date May 21, 2008

3:38:24 PM says penis was soft, indicates coaching after initial report of being hard
3:42:07-40 PM claimed her alleged abuse only happened 2 or 3 times over the whole time with grandparents
3:51:10 PM said she lies to not get in trouble
4:12:31 PM talked because her mom was being nice
4:39:35 PM The DA was able to get to say more than 20 times
5:11:59 PM Prosecutor asks Annie availability of pornography in the house but fails to inquire about computer porn.
Misconduct Summary
Coaching the witness was covertly demonstrated by DA Brown with on the stand. The DA accomplished
coaching by approaching the child and having her do a very easy task to gain her confidence then ask the question in a
more familiar way she'd already been coached on. DA also neglects to ask Annie specifically about computer
pornography in the house.
Date May 22, 2008

2:14:16 PM Tom Jr. says there are no pornographic tapes or magazines or anything like that in house
3:39:59 PM DA claims “victim” testimony is credible, Dr’s opinion of sexual abuse, “happened all the time”
-
4:20:29 PM Psych. Christine Arthur Possible abuse & violence brackets birth to 3.5
4:22:19 PM Psych. Christine Arthur - She told the whoppers, lies no one could believe and it went on and on.
Misconduct Summary
DA fails to ask Tom Jr. if anyone in the house has seen pornography on the computer, which would make it available
in house and in temporary files still in the house, when in fact a website link on Tom Jr.’s profile page is linked to a
pornographic website. DA continues to ignore ’s problem of lying relative to this case. DA didn’t ask if the Dr.
alleging sexual abuse could narrow the time of alleged abuse to before Channel was brought under Tom Jr.’s custody
or during the times of grandparent visitation addressed by this case. DA ignores both of ’s numeric assessments
on abuse frequency lying to Judge and Jury by claiming it happened all the time. DA implies abuse prior to arrival at
defendant’s house is abuse by defendant, a direct lie. DA said a child diagnosed as capable of extreme whopper lying
is giving credible testimony without justification at all, let alone justification to override a Psychiatrist.
Date May 23, 2008
1 1:05:53 AM DA confirms if child is telling the truth suggestive questions won’t have much effect.
Application: If was telling the truth, why could the DA so easily manipulate her on counts?
11:21:00 AM DA associates “the good stuff ’ term with indicating a sex abuser, which expert denies.
3:31:30 PM DA associates dates with counts to pin down for jury the time frame for each count
Misconduct Summary
DA confirms with expert if a child is telling the truth the child won’t be very suggestible yet the day before, DA easily
manipulated ’s testimony from 2-3 counts to over 21, implying wasn’t telling the truth . The DA did not
expose or submit to that truth. DA over the course of the trial and especially on this day exposes a deep seated fantasy
that “the good stuff’ means sex abuser in his mind and even though refuted by an expert, uses his lying point the
following day, May 27. A particularly subtle act of embellishing speculation occurred when DA moved to correspond
dates with counts, thus making a framework for considering the counts actually happened when they did not.
Date May 27, 2008

9:37:21 AM - 9:43:07 AM Misc.
9:43:08 AM - 10:25:15 AM Prosecutor
9:46:45 AM Crime occurred in Clatsop County
Misconduct: Assuming there was a crime, lie to jury, imagined scenario, opinion not fact
9:48:34 AM Election to associate all 42 counts with separate blocks of time, 3 mo. to 6 mo..
Disregards coached testimony of 2-3 counts and DA coached testimony of 21 counts.
Misconduct: pure speculation of times, imagined scenario, opinion not fact
9:52:11 AM More likely there was a lot more oral sex on victim than on defendant
Misconduct: speculative lie to jury there was any sex, emphasis of imagined scenario, not fact
9:53:00 AM Count 22 for instance was defendant touching vagina
Misconduct: speculative lie to jury touching vagina happened, imagined scenario, not fact
9:53:30 AM How many possible crimes? .... I submit it happened a lot
Misconduct: speculative lie to jury any crime happened, submitting imaginations not facts
9:53:57 AM 21 is one more than fingers and toes, it means a number you can’t count on fingers and toes.
Misconduct: speculation not supported by any professional witness, lie to jury
9:54:09 AM DA says she said on stand it happened lots and lots of times
Challenge: I don’t remember her saying that phrase “lots and lots” only 2, 3, and 21
Misconduct: embellishing a lie to jury to imply more counts than alleged
9:54:20 AM DA submits defendant committed these kinds of crimes hundreds of times
Challenge: I remember her saying only 2, 3, and after DA’s coaching 21
Misconduct: embellishing lie to jury implying more counts than he could coach witness to say
9:54:38 AM Must show defendant knowingly had deviant sexual intercourse, explains sodomy counts
Challenge: Can’t knowingly do something that didn’t happen
Misconduct: lie to jury to imply any sexual contact occurred
9:56:25 AM Second charges sexual abuse in first degree, touching sexual or intimate parts to arouse or gratify
Misconduct: Setting up framework for lie to jury, imagined scenario, opinion not fact
9:58:36 AM Direct and circumstantial evidence - eyewitnesses, chain of events - jury can believe anyone
Misconduct: Although this may be law, there is no direction to seek truth.
10:04:04 AM She has worse credibility problems than most other kids, said he rubbed vagina w/fingers, penis
Challenge: She lies worse than other kids so how can she be believed?
Misconduct: lie to juiy by repetitive catharsis on lying then repeating the lies as fact
10 05:09 AM Said defendant’s beard hurt inside of legs
:
Challenge: Hair cannot hurt one person’s skin without hurting the one with hair.
Lily Kelly says her husband’s face was never marked from being rubbed raw.
Misconduct: lie to jury by repeating a lie as fact
10:13:00 AM Annie’s instincts true? Digging deeper to discover or create a vacuum requiring made up truth?
Challenge: If jury couldn’t tell was lying, was Annie projecting?
Misconduct: lie to jury, speculative conjecture, opinion not fact
10:15:27 AM It all shows this happened many dozen, hundreds of times.
Challenge: If each gets 8.3 years, isn’t it important to show how times grow to lOG’s?
Misconduct: lie of omission to jury, complete speculation on 100’s
10:16:19 AM Lily said you could get pom on the TV in the bedroom
Challenge: Porn is available by internet, how was it not available in Tom Jr.’s several homes?
Misconduct: lie of omission to jury
10:25:21 AM - 11:22:15 AM Defense
11:22:26 AM - 11:46:25 AM Prosecutor
11:22:26 AM It’s about motives, asked if any pornography in house, there is no evidence, they’d have to lie
Answer: Pom on their website profiles means there is pom on the computers) in their house.
See: Tom Jr. http:// proliles. vahoo.com / flviin.dish 52 (cool link to vtw. penis hot . com)
See Anne http://profiles . vahoo. com/plzernlace (cool link to www. satinslippers.coni )
Misconduct: lie to jury, speculation, emphatic opinion not fact
11:23:12 AM It was not a tailed investigation
Answer: Failed to discover above information on the parents computers)
Misconduct: lie to jury, conjecture, opinion not fact
11:29:09 AM Do you want to change your story suggests it was a story and it’s not true.
Answer: It was a story and not true - also denies expert testimony on May 23.
11:31:26 AM not implanted memory, total speculation, no motive
Answer: No more speculation than DA’s side. Motives see May 20, 5:07:24-36
11:32:22 AM Sex abused kids have problems with lying
Answer: the child was abused for years before custody changed - experts said all kids lie
11:34:16 AM You are entitled to disregard expert testimony particularly on if will tell
Answer: DA is taking the word of a documented whopper liar over expert testimony.
Misconduct: Encouraging jury to lie to themselves on expert testimony, opinion not fact
11:35:40 AM Do you think a little girl would watch pornography over and over?
Answer: Of course, little kids want to repeat fun experiences again, again.
11:38:46 AM Back to the beginning, no motive, nobody’s got any axe to grind against the defendant
Answer: Her email ‘I don’t care about your problems any more than you care about mine”
Implies case is retribution for failure to take her kids too, enabling parent freedom days.
11:40:35 AM ejaculate went on edge, horrible deeds on back of cushion, no other explanation
Answer: Semen only sperm heads could have been carried there in pants up to 25 years ago
and years of sitting on cushions would have shaken sperm heads to undersides of cushions.
11:43:13 AM Why “The Good Stuff ”? Why secret?
Answers: So kid would have something more polite to say. Tom is on the spot creative.
Misconduct: create false image to jury, ignored expert testimony
11:45:01 AM Little girls are princesses
Answer: Some are not. Depends on being raised well which wasn’t at first.
Alternative: Grandparents helped transition from abused to loved.
11:45:45 AM Call a man who would sexually abuse his granddaughter horrible, despicablefevil
11:46:08 AM This evil man needs to be held accountable, tell him he did it and is guilty
Misconduct: complete lie to jury, implying jury should make up for others
11:46:30 AM - 12:03:46 AM Judge
Misconduct Summary
DA’s lie count is shocking in closing argument and final closing. It’s surprising the jury was so gullible to believe the
DA. The variety of lies spans many categories, lies of omission to mislead the jury, lies of speculation, lies of failure to
consider or mention possible motives, alternate explanations, availability of pornography in parent’s home(s) by
computer and TV, so many that for accuracy readers should explore each misconduct in the timeline and realize there
may be more to discover .
Date May 28, 2008

DA Brown did not speak.
Jurors polled on votes provided no reasons and appeared to have been guessing the defendant into the pen.
Date May 29, 2008

Front page story in the Daily Astorian, byline author Joe Gamm wasn’t at trial, said he got the information from the
DA’s office. So it’s more lies from DA Brown.
Paragraph 3 Defendant did not show pornographic videos to or assault his granddaughter. Speculation, lie not fact.
Paragraph 6, 7 Kelly did not yell or shout but spoke in a calm voice. For proof triai CD May 28 2008, 3:56:34
Paragraph 8 Twelve police officers were not present. Eyewitnesses said two escorted him out. Lie not fact.
Paragraph 10 The good guy is in jail. The case was a real win for the good guys? Speculation, lie not fact.
Paragraph 11 The true victim is the innocent defendant. The false accuser is to be praised? Speculation, not fact.
Misconduct Summary
DA publishes his false speculations, false assessments, and false self glorification, praising the wrong person.
Misconduct Review
DA Brown is taking the position of a social parasite interpreting facts to fit his agenda instead of serving the truth. The
DA fails to consider alternative explanations of the child’s testimony, including the suggestions of several expert
witnesses that she may be lying and fails to ask or conceive of motives for that lying and the misguidance of her
female parent which poisoned the relationships of that family with one pair of grandparents. The true story is DA Ron
Brown was the evil one in this case and the office which employs and supervises him should be examined for evil also.
J - • •
O- -
• umuc:s IUI iiiMam play -
I
their position , ” said 'It s like going from
' back, allowing watch-
Senior Chief Opera- standers to repeat trans-
tions Specialist Steven cassette tapes to
missions and decipher
Fields, the command discs / garbled messages, or to
center chief . “ Now all Mark Dobney share them between the 1
they have to do is key civilian search and rescue coordinator Coast Guard and other I
up their radio, and if emergency response V
the Rescue 21 system agencies. I

picks it up, it will give us a line of bearing “It’ s like going from cassette tapes to
to their position. If we get two lines of discs, ” Dobney said . “This is jumping
bearing that cross, then we have a pretty from digital tape to a system that ’ s acces-
good idea of where they may be. It great - sible to everybody.”
ly decreases our search area ." I
What that all adds up to is efficiency:
The new system also reduces gaps in saving rescuers valuable time in reaching
radio coverage, bouncing signals off the struggling boaters, while conserving tax -
five towers dedicated to Group Astoria and payers ’ dollars. ALEX PAJUNAS — The Daily Astorian
its boat stations and off shared facilities. “ If there’ s a distress call , a mayday The upgraded technology used in the Rescue 21 comnbunication system improves
“It allows us to use towers that are call, then we’re going to go. But this will the Coast Guard’s direction-finding capabilities, reducing response times on emer-
overlapping from the next adjacent sector help us determine where to go and help us gency calls. Lines stretch from radio towers to boats in the graphic display on
or group,” Dobney explained . “Before, narrow down our search efforts, getting our the right, showing where calls are coming from. Multiple frequencies are moni-
you had a limit to just what you were con - resources closer to the right spot to start tored on the screen to the left. Information can now also be shared with differ-
nected to. Now we can connect a little bit with,” Dobney said. “In our cold water, ent computers at different bases for better coordination
.
farther. That way, when you get some - every minute is going to count . That ’ s callers is a big fringe benefit, said Fields. according to the Coast Guard. Operating
thing right on the borderline, you defi - really important.” The monetary costs of hoaxes are huge. one of the Coast Guard ' s 47-foot motor
nitely will have the means to talk to them ." That also makes a big difference when False distress calls waste taxpayers’ money
In addition , Rescue 21 allows con - a hoax call comes in - nabbing phony and put rescuers at unnecessary risk , See RESCUE, Page 12 E
Prosecutor commends abuse victim for courage in testifying t

district attorney praised the courage of the vic- And as the jury was cers in the courtroom who removed Kelly.
Astoria man facing long tim for speaking up against what he called ‘The polled at Kelly’s attor- Kelly, whose sentencing is scheduled for
prison sentence yells at jury evil of child abuse.” Brown described Kelly’s ney ’ s request , Kelly July 3, faces minimum mandatory sentences
basement, where he had a TV and chairs began yelling at jurors, of 100 months in prison for each of the
and has to be restrained arranged to play pornographic videos in front Brown said Kelly sodomy charges and 75 months for the sex-
of the girl before or after he made the assaults, shouted “I’ m guilty ,” ual abuse charges. Brown said he would be
By JOE GAMM Brown said the victim described scenes in then paused and shouted, asking Matyas to impose the sentences con-
The Daily Astorian the movies that police found on the videos. “of nothing.” secutively - essentially sentencing Kelly to
Brown said the jury gave Kelly the bene- Circuit Court Judge 166 years ii prison.
A Clatsop County jury convicted Thomas fit of the doubt on when the ongoing abuse Cindee Matyas warned Brown said the case was, “a real win for
Michael Kelly, a 57-year-old Astoria man , of started, and found him not guilty on charges Kelly he would be the good guys.”
12 counts of first-degree sodomy and 12 he abused the victim in 2003. But members removed from the Thomas Kelly He said a lot of sexual abuse never gets
counts of first-degree sexual abuse Wednes- of the jury found he committed ongoing abuse courtroom if his behav- reported.
day, following a five-day trial. of the victim between 2004 and 2006. Fol- ior continued. Kelly replied that she should “Any sex abuse victim is a hero for com-
His 10-year-old victim testified during the lowing four days of testimony, the 12-mem- “go ahead” and Matyas ordered Kelly taken ing forward and testifying in front of adults
trial and was commended by the prosecutor , ber jury deliberated for a day before reaching into custody and removed from the court- they’ve never met before,” Brown said. “The
Ron Brown, Clatsop County’s chief deputy its decision. rooml. Brown said there were 121police offi - victim’s to be praised above anybody.”
5-* . :
m mmm
r
;
»P§e@ii»§!
!8
11
1 .
Description Trial - Day 1
State v Thomas Michael Kelly 06-1238
State - Ron Brown
Defense - Susan Reese
Clerk - Aho
Date 5/20/2008 Location Courtroom 100
Trial - Day 1 Courtroom 100
Time Speaker Note

9:40:51 AM Ion record :
i
9:40:54 AM jstate v kelly 106-1238 motion hearing/ r brown for state / def in person
: { with susan reese /
9:41:28 AM { court { discuss jury coordination matters with counsei
9:42 : 53 AM { defense { opening motions
9:49:57 AM { state { opening
9: 55:48 AM : def { argument
10:00:43 AM { court { ruling on video
10:02:44 AM { state { regarding gaps on tape
10:03:45 AM f court { ruling
10:04:24 AMl def { 412 motion - regarding daycare testimony
10:08:07 AM { state { response
10:09:22 AMldef { response
10:14:31 AMIcoiirt { regarding connection under 412 - argument under 404
I I
10:16:31 AMIstate { argument - re 404, 405 & 608
'
10:18:08 AMldef { argument

10 : 22:55 AMicourt { regarding 404(1)
10:23:20 AM { defense { response
10:30:29 AM { defense { move to exclude witnesses
10:30:41 A Mlstate
'
{ response - regarding witness order and childs stepmother

i
10:32:07 AMicourt { ruling to ailow stepmother in courtroom during chiid
I { testimony
10:33:38 AM { defense { regarding Mr Brown with concealed weapon/ jury impression
i !
10:33:50 AM fj state Iresponse
10:35:32 AM { court { ruling
10:37:54 AM { state -
:{ regarding ruie 615 - Det Hanthorne in courtroom
10:38:22 AMldefense
'
{ objection
10:42:40 A Mlstate ( regarding annie reeves and children
10:43:58 AMjdef
'
I
{ response
10:44:40 AMicourt :
:
10: 46:TT AM joff re I

11 :15:55 AMjon record i
11 :15 59 AM { court
!
I i commitments
:
11:43:40 AMicourt { interview jurors who answered yes to question 3
12:10:50 PMloff record I
1:30:04 PM { on record
'
I
1:30:11 PM { court Iregarding additional 8 jurors
T:34:07 PM loff record i
1:44:30 PM { on record i
5/20/2008 2 of 3
Time Speaker Note

1:45:51 PM icourt jquestion additional 8 jurors
2:15:06 PM Icourt ( jury instruction
2:44:12 PMldef
"
I questions to jury
3:48:09 PM ion record !
Icourt
'
3:52:33 PM Ijury back in

3:54: 39 PM Tdef j resume questions to jury
4:10: 27 PM lcourt jjury to jury room
4:10:34 PM Ioff record
4:26:56 PM Ion record
4:26:58 PM Icourt Ijurv selection
4:37:50 PM jcourt Ijury back in
4:46:16 PM jstate lopening
5:08:20 PM icourt jexcuse jury for evening
5:24:56 PM Ioff record i
5/20/2008 3 of 3
State - Ron Brown
Clerk - Aho
Time Speaker Note

9:14:17 AM ion record !
9 : 15: 31 AM icourt { instruct audience regarding conduct in courtroom

9:16:27 AM Icourt |regarding juror #3 (knowledge of defs son)
9:19:36 AM ireese isubmits ex 101 medical records of victim/not offered yet
:
9 : 27 : 24 AM icourt jbring jury in

9 :31:09 AM icourt j interview juror #93 Timothy Murphy - excuse juror
?
! { ( relationship with def family member)
9:38:27 AM icourt ;interview juror #13 Mary Parker -
9:43:53 AM j court i Interview juror #35 John Mattingly -
9: 46:38 AM j court i bring jury in -
9 : 47:32 AM Ireese { opening statement
10:03:22 AMfstate jcaiis w-1 Dr. Roy Little
10:14 :02 AMistate ; offers ex 2 to w-1 (lighthouse video ) for id /offered/ received
I I
11:00:17 AMloff record Ibreak

j1:16:46 AMIon record i
lTl 7:43 AMIcourt

'
ljury back in
11:18:58 AMIstate ! resume with w-1
11: 21:41 AMIreese i cross w-1
11:49:49 AM { state iredirect w-1
11:56:58 AM j court { excuse w-1
11:58:05 AMIoff record
1:27:10 PM ion record :
1:27:35 PM Icourt { juryback in

1 :29:30 PM (state jcaiis w-2 kristen hanthorn clatsop sheriffs dept
1:35:02 PMIstate { offers ex 4, 5 (a, b & cj, 6 (a, b & cj and 9 and 10 to w-2 for
J
1:51:07 PM ireese
{ id/ offered/no objection/received
Icross w-2
1:51 : 48 PM { court |w-2 steps down
1:56:36 PM istate I calls w-3 dale purceil (former forsensic scientist opdji - by
i { telephone
2:14:17 PM Ireese { cross w-3
2 :37: 45 PM Istate { redirect w-3
2:41:56 PM Istate Icaiis w-4 eiaine kitano (former forensic scientist opdj - by
{ telephone
2:55:17 PM ireese { cross w-4
2:59:50 PM { state { re-direct w-4
3:02:38 PM Icourt { excuse w-4
3:03:12 PM { off record { break - jury out
3:22:55 PM { on record I
3:22:59 PM Icourt { jury back in
3:25:59 PM Istate jcaiis w-5 kelly
5/21/2008 2 of 3
Time Speaker Note

3:52:48 PM ireese ii cross w-5
3:55:59 PM I off record
i I
4:08:35 PM Ion record 1
4:09:51 PM I court [ jury back in
4:09:54 PM ireese [ resume w-5
4:34:31 PM |state [ redirect w-5
4:38:50 PM I state [ offers exhibit 3 (a - 1) to w-5 for id/ no objection/received
i
i
4:40:35 PM [ court [ jury question for w-5
4:41:54 PM [ court iw-5 steps down
4:42:36 PM [ state [ calls w-6 annie reeves
5:13 : 38 PM [ off record !
5/21/2008 3 of 3
Description Trial-Day 3
State - Ron Brown
Clerk - Aho
Trial-Day 3 Courtroom 100
Time Speaker Note

9:10:09 AM jon record
9:12:66 AM ! court j bring jury in
i
9:13 : 40 AM jreese icont cross w-6
9:15:39 AM Ireese : offers ex 105, 106, 107, 108 to w-6 for Id / offered/ no
j objection/ received/ published
9:30 : 32 AM jreese Ioffers ex 101 to w-6 for id
9:40:04 AM ! court ( jury removed / discussion of iegal issue
9:45:59 AM j court jjury back in
[ 9:46:03 AM jreese jresume w-6
9:49:53 AM j court ijury removed - legal
9:53 : 59 AM j court ljury back in
f
9:54:01 AM jreese Iresume w-6
'
10 : 17 : 27 AM jreese j offers ex 112 to w-6 for id/

16 :19:03 AM j state j redirect w-6
'
10:24:31 AM icourt iw-6 steps down

10:24:44 AM j off record I: break
10:42:39 AMion record i
i
16: 42:40 AM icourt jbring jury in
10 :43 : 51 AMjstate jcalis w-7 ireland keiiy
10 :51:03 AM jreese ! cross w-7
10:51:07 AM j court jexcuse w-7
10:51:09 AMjstate jcalis w-8 jason hoover ciatsop county dep sheriff
10: 57:52 AM j state j offers ex 1 (tape of hoover interview) to w-8 for id7
i joffered/no objection/received /played for jury
11: 24:23 AM ireese j cross w-8
11 :29:21 AM I state j redirect w-8
11:29: 40 AMIcourt jexcuse w-8
11:29: 58 AM:ireese jcaiis w-9 gwynn elizabeth preston, licensed ciinical
isociol worker
1
11:32 : 34 AM jreese j offers ex 110 to w-9 for id /offered /no objection/received
i
:
11:35:21 AMIreese j objection to w-9 testimony
TT:35:28 AMiIcourt legal matter - regarding w-9 testimony
11:44:22 AM icourt ljury back in
i
11:44:50 AM j state icross w-9
11 : 46:39 AMireese Iredirect w-9
i
TT:49:24 AM fcourt'' Iexcuse w-9
11:49: 52 AM j state j recall w-2 sgt hanthorn
11:50:44 AMistate
I j offers ex 3 (a - ijto w-2 for id /ofifered/no
I
i
jobjection/received/
11:56 : 56 AMjstate [ offers ex 3 ( m,nj to w-2 for id/ offered /no objection/
[ received
5/22/2008 2 of 3
Trial-Day 3 Courtroom 100
Time Speaker Note

11 :58:20 AMIstate joffers ex 7 & 8 to w -2 for id/offered/ no objection/
I received
11: 59: 48 AMioff record !
1:51:17 PM ion record f
1:51:21 PM Icourt ijury in
1:52:39 PM jstate !resume with w-2
1:54:20 PM Istate
i
ioffers ex (poonographic video) - plays for jury
!
?
I
1:57:27 PM Ireese Icross w-2
i
2:00:11 PM icourt Ijury question to w-2
2 :02: 40 PM icourt | jury question to w-2
2:03:50 PM Istate Icalls w-10 thomas a kelly
2: 14:33 PM Ireese Icross w-16
2 :29:03 PM ireese Ioffers ex 101 to w-10 for id
2:37:47 PMIstate ?
Iredirect w-10
2: 41:22 PM Icourt lexcuse w-10
i
2:42:12 PM loff record I
2 : 58: 47 PM |on record f
!
2:58: 50 PM icourt .
f
Ijury back in
2 :59: 56 PM istate I calls w-11 elaine suzanne keliy
3:09:30 PM ireese icross w-11
3 : 33:10 PM Istate Iredirect w-11
3 : 35 :07 PM Ireese Iredirect w-11
i
3:35:49 PM Icourt lexcuse w-11
:
f
3 :36:04 PM Istate
3:36:08 PM Ireese
Irests
Imotion
f
3:40:05 PM Istate Irespo
f
3: 41: 32 PM jcourt jdenied
f
3 : 41: 42 PM joff record Ibreak
f
4 : 01:21 PM | on record \
i
4 : 01:24 PM Icourt ijury back in
4:03:06 PM |reeves j calls w-12 Christine carol arthur, psychiatrist
4:37:36 PM Istate ?
Icross w-12
?
4:50 : 03 PM Icourt lexcuse w-12
4:51:14 PM Ireese
t
i aiis_w-13 caroke-litton
4 : 56:59 PM j state Icross w-13
i
4:57: 42 PM ; court lexcuse w-13
;
4:58:39 PM loff record ?

!
5/22/2008 3 of 3
State v Thomas Michael Kelly Case No. 06-1238
State - Ron Brown
Clerk - Aho

Time Speaker Note

9:24:53 AM ion record
i i
9:26:18 AM Icourt Imatters regarding scheduling
9:28:36 AM icourt
9:29:54 AM Ireese { offers exhibt 113 /no objection/ received
9:31:18 AM ireese icails w-14 Dr. Kevin McGovern
10:34:07 AMioff record I break
10:53 :23 AM ion record
10:53:32 AMIcourt Iremind parties of court etiquette
10:54:00 AMicourt jjury back in
10:55:28 AM ireese jresume with w-14
11To0: 48 AMIstate I cross w-14
11:47 : 03 AM ireese Iredirect w-14
12 : 01 :23 PMlc »3urt I: excuse w-14
12 :0 T:34 PMlcourt Ii break for lunch
12:02:10 PM I off record !i
2 : 27 : 40 PM ion record
2:27:43 PM lcourt { jury back in
2:29:30 PM Ireese icails w-15 dr keiiey fellman
2 : 31: 21 PM Ireese
"
{ offers ex 102/no objection/received

2:45 : 59 PM I state I cross w-15
2:51 : 54 PM Ireese { redirect w-15
2: 53 : 04 PM I court { excuse w-16 / offers ex 103 to w-16 for id/offered/no
{ objection/received
2:53:31 PM Ireese { calls w-16
3 : 07:17 PM j state { cross w-16
3:13:45 PM { court { excuse w-16
3:13:59 PM Ireese { rests
3:14:21 PM loff record { jury out
3:15:09 PM { on record { jury out - discuss jury instructions
3:25:44 PM ireese { offers ex 101B 7 offers / state objects to page 27 aliowed with
i
t
[ page removed (101C)
3:31:16 PM j state { moving to eiect to corespond dates with counts
3:32:10 PMlcourt
'
{ jury back in
3:36:33 PM lcourt ijury :
3:36:36 PM I court { jury instructions with counsel
3:57:38 PM Ioff I
i
5/23/2008 2 of 2
[Description Triai - Day 5
State v Thomas Michael Kelly 06 -1238
State - Ron Brown
Clerk - Aho
Time Speaker Note

9:37:53 AM |on record I
9:37:57 AM Icourt !
i
9:38:08 AM Ireese Irenew motion to aquit
9:39:19 AM jcourt |motion to acqut denied
9:39:35 AM Ireese |regarding range of dates
9:43:02 AM Icourt ljury in
9:43:13 AM |state |closing argument
10: 25:20 AMIreese jclosing argument
11:22:24 AMIstate Ifinai closing
11 : 46:32 AM I court ljury instruction
5/27/2008 2 of 2
Description Trial - 6
State - Ron Brown
Clerk - Aho
Trial - 6
Courtroom 100
Time Speaker Note
3:36:14 PM Ion record
3:36 : 16 PM [ court instruct regarding courtroom conduct
3 : 38:37 PM [ court ury procedure with counsel
3:39:34 PM [ court JURY IN
3:41:38 PM [ court verdict
3 : 42 : 24 PM [ court read verdict
3:59 - 39 PM [ court ury released
4:00:16 PM [ off record
5/28/2008
2 of 2
Page 1 of 7
Scott Morrii!
From: Overcomer Man [overcomer . man@ gmail.com]

Sent: Monday , June 16, 2008 11: 22 PM
To : Scott Morrill
Subject: Re : Emergency : How to get innocent out of jail
Dear Mr. Morrill,
Thanks again. I' ve finished my Misconduct Report and will write a cover letter and send it off with the
FTR CD's Tuesday . Here' s an advance copy for your interest.
(Expand browser to full screen to reduce word wrap below.)
Sincerely ,
Kirk Fraser
350 NE 6th
June 16, 2008
Cindee S . Matyas
Astoria, OR 97103
Dear Ms. Matyas:
RE : Friend of the Court Request For Mistrial With Retrial Or Release On State V . Thomas M . Kelly, Case 06 -
1238
The trial audio contains dozens of lies based on speculations, imagined scenarios, conjecture, and opinions not
fact which were presented as or implied as facts to the jury . Many of these are obvious when looking at the case
from a presumption of innocence. There are a few where evidence directly contradicts the State ' s position , two
you can test yourself right now with the aid of a computer (See Misconduct Report May 27, 2008 1 1 : 22: 26 ).
Since DA Brown introduced provable lies, it is proper for you to consider all his testimony not in the interests of
truth in this case, the verdict wrong, and discontinue sentencing.
“
A few other trial highlights should be considered . If the DA were seeking the truth he would have not only asked
about 's problems with lying and this case but he would have directly asked if she was lying right now
about her grandpa. One of the ongoing concerns in the DA 's opening through Dr. Little's testimony to the DA ' s
final closing was motives for the child lying and parent's lying. Specific potential motives were not mentioned .
Possible motives exist ( See Misconduct Report May 20, 2008 5 : 07: 24 and 5 : 07:36) . The potential for a civil
lawsuit against the defendant Lily has received a warning of since the trial from a person familiar with both sides.
Proof of coaching the girl is available by comparing the pre- trial documentation with her trail testimony . In the
initial police report Hoover recorded she said the defendant 's penis was hard . In a recorded police interview Lily
Kelly said Tom 's penis has been completely soft, in erectile dysfunction for a year and a half before the
interview. In the trial has changed her testimony from hard in Hoover ' s initial report to say it was soft
( May 21, 2008 3:38 : 24 ) . One instance of lying by coaching means there could be others. said she lies to
not get in trouble (3 : 51 :10 ). She talked because her mom was being nice ( 4: 12 :31) . Was she coached by all
interviewers being nice?
claimed on the stand her alleged abuse only happened 2 or 3 times over the whole time with grandparents
6/17/2008
Page 2 of 7
( May 21 , 2008 3 : 42 : 07-40 ) . That means most of the alleged counts are absolutely speculative lies which should
be thrown out . Later the DA was able to get her to say more than 20 times ( 4 :39: 35 ) . Is that easy to
coach ? That credibility would argue the whole case with all charges should be thrown out .
The theatrics of the DA in his final closing before the jury ( which is always selected for gullibility ) failed to
disclose the DNA from sperm heads could have fallen out of his pants up to 25 years ago from non-sexual
nocturnal emissions.
I ' ve personally known Thomas M . Kelly since 1980 as a man of conscience who has started several home church
meetings in surrounding communities over the years . I ' ve attended his meetings in Astoria, Rainier, Clatskanic,
and Knappa. As far as I' m aware there has never been a claim of this nature before . You may be aware that
preacher's kids are notorious for misbehavior and Tom Jr. is no exception as obedient Christians many before
having kids .
Since the book Actual Innocence and the Innocence Projects in various law schools which it spawned claims
20%~ 30% of all prisoners are innocent and there is enough hard evidence, soft evidence, and speculative
refutation to completely overturn the DA 's testimony, it seems more likely Mr . Kelly is innocent than guilty . So
please do the right thing and release him either permanently or for a retrial .
Sincerely ,
Kirk W. Fraser
6/17/2008
Page 3 of 7
Preliminary Report of Misconduct by

Clatsop County DA Ron Brown
Case 06- 1238 State v . Kelly
Compiled by Kirk W . Fraser
The preponderance of the DA 's statements in this case were lies consisting of speculative imagined scenarios and
opinions, very few identified as alleged , attributed to any witness or identified as what if possibilities but stated as
facts to the jury. The frequency of such statements leads me to suggest investigation into other cases by the DA
and others from his office to determine the scope of this culture of lies.
Of course direct name calling such as when he called Tom " evil " in final closing with only circumstantial
evidence are also plain lies. Note this report contains comments on time indexed statements which appear to be
misconduct, not the entire statements which may also cover other topics .
Date May 20, 2008

9:40 : 37 AM - 10:46 : 06 AM Misc .
11 : 15 :33 AM - 12 : 10:48 AM Jury Interviews & Break Time
1:29:59 PM - 4:51:24 PM Jury Instructions & Interviews & Break Time
4 : 51 :24 PM - 5 : 08 : 08 PM Prosecutor
4 : 51 : 29 PM Kelly is the victim in this case.
Misconduct: opinion as fact, did not say " alleged ” victim .
4 : 54 :34 PM Crimes occurred on Cedar Street .
Misconduct : opinion as fact, did not say " alleged " crimes.
4 : 55 : 13 PM Well if grandma was gone, got sexually abused .
Misconduct: lie to jury , speculation , imagined scenario
4:55 : 3 1 PM The defendant would sexually abuse down in the basement generally
Misconduct: lie to jury , speculation , imagined scenario, and cumulative repeat
4:55:49 PM Defendant would preoccupy Ireland with video games when sexually abusing his sister
Misconduct: lie to jury, speculation , imagined scenario, and cumulative repeat
4 : 56 :39 PM She never puts any of those movies in herself, the defendant would show her those movies
Misconduct : lie to jury, speculation, imagined scenario
4:56:46 PM He would sit there and watch pornographic movies with his granddaughter to desensitize a
child
Misconduct : lie to jury , speculation , expanding on imagined scenario, and cumulative
repeat
4 : 57:04 PM So that's what the defendant did , he would show pornographic movies
Misconduct: lie to jury, specu 1ation , imagined
4 : 57 : 09 PM And eventually that led to him sexually abusing her
Misconduct : lie to jury, speculation , imagined scenario, and cumulative repeat
4 : 57: 53 PM The defendant would commit sodomy, lick her vagina , cause her to have oral sex with him
Misconduct: lies to jury, speculation , imagined crimes and scenarios
4:58: 10 PM He would get whisker burns on the inside of her legs
Misconduct : lie to jury, speculation and medically not possible without reverse burn
4 : 58: 21 PM Thought reaction to wetting the bed . .. but they were actually whisker burns
Misconduct: lie to jury, speculation , opinion not fact
4:58:34 PM He would rub his penis on her vagina, he actually tried to enter herand have intercourse
Misconduct: lie to jury, expanding on imagined scenario, opinion not fact, no medical
damage
4 : 58: 50 PM He had " him " suck his penis, he had " him " stroke his penis, until he eventually ejaculated
Misconduct : lie to jury , imagined scenario, opinion not fact, " him " possible Freudian Slip!
4 : 58 : 56 PM "The Good Stuff ’ is disparaged as a term for semen
Misconduct: misleads jury to view " the good stuff as worse than term "semen "
( NAPA ads use " get the good stuff on TV )
4:59 :35 PM He would touch her breasts WHICH DIDN ' T EXIST AT THAT AGE
Misconduct : lie to jury, speculation, imagined scenario, opinion not fact
6/17/2008
Page 4 of 7
5: 00: 04 PM He would actually put cushion on ground and abuse her until he finally ejaculated
Misconduct: lie to jury, speculation , imagined scenario, opinion not actual fact
5 : 01 :48 PM Crime lab said his semen was on 3 of those cushions, corroborating what 's going to
say
fact
Misconduct: Semen could be 25 years old — imagined scenario, corroboration opinion not
5 :02 : 01 PM The defendant told her not to tell anybody and if she did the police would really hurt him
bad .
Misconduct: mislead jury , no evidence, no specific topic, imagined scenario
5: 02 : 21 PM I le convinced her that she was a willing co-participant in this and she had guilt feelings about
it
Misconduct : mislead jury , no evidence other than frequently lying witness, imagined
scenario
5:02 :32 PM She kept this inside from 2002 until 2006
Misconduct: lie to jury with no evidence, imagined scenario
5 : 04: 28 PM Almost never any evidence - had he attempted actual intercourse there might have been
evidence
Misconduct: lie to jury, contradicts claim at 4: 58:34 of intercourse attempt .
5 :07: 24 PM Does Kelly have any kind of motive to lie in open court to get her grandfather in
trouble?
Answer : Yes, bonding with Anne Reeves who had been abused , to reduce family instability
Misconduct: mislead jury into prejudice that has no such motive.
5 : 07 : 36 PM Look for whether Anne Reeves has any kind of motive to try to get the defendant in trouble.
Answer : Yes, to stabilize relation with Tom Jr ., vicarious punishment on her abuser,
punishment to senior Kellys for not babysitting her other kids when having back
pain, and future civil suit money .
Misconduct: mislead jury into prejudice that Anne Reeves has no such motive .
5 :08 : 10 PM - 5 : 09 : 35 PM Judge
Misconduct Summary
True justice presumes innocence until proven guilty . Repeatedly programming the jury over and over with
speculation , imagined scenarios and opinions without support of evidence or honest witnesses is not proof of guilt
but the cumulative programming effect often gets unjust wins for the state. The DA 's setup against motives is
carried into his final closing statement indicating inability to discover the truth with his speculations.
Date May 21, 2008

3:38: 24 PM says penis was soft , indicates coaching after initial report of being hard
ed 2 or 3 times over the whole time with
grandparents
3:51 :10 PM said she lies to not get in trouble
4:12 :31 PM talked because her mom was being nice
4:39 :35 PM The DA was able to get to say more than 20 times
5 : 11 :59 PM Prosecutor asks Annie availability of pornography in the house but fails to inquire about computer
porn .
Misconduct Summary
Coaching the witness was covertly demonstrated by DA Brown with '
on the stand . The DA accomplished

coaching by approaching the child and having her do a very easy task to gain her confidence then ask the question
in a more familiar way she'd already been coached on . DA also neglects to ask Annie specifically about computer
pornography in the house.
Date May 22 , 2008

2 : 14 : 16 PM Tom Jr . says there are no pornographic tapes or magazines or anything like that in house
3 :39: 59 PM DA claims "victim " testimony is credible, Dr ' s opinion of sexual abuse, " happened all the time "
4:20:29 PM Psych . Christine Arthur - Possible abuse & violence brackets birth to 3.5
4:22:19 PM Psych . Christine Arthur - She told the whoppers* li it went on and -on.
6/ 17/2008
Page 5 of 7
Misconduct Summary
DA fails to ask Tom Jr. if anyone in the house has seen pornography on the computer, which would make it
available in house and in temporary files still in the house, when in fact a website link on Tom Jr .'s profile page is
linked to a pornographic website. DA continues to ignore 's problem of lying relative to this case. DA
didn 't ask if the Dr. alleging sexual abuse could narrow the time of alleged abuse to before Channel was brought
under Tom Jr.'s custody or during the times of grandparent visitation addressed by this case. DA ignores both of
's numeric assessments on abuse frequency lying to Judge and Jury by claiming it happened all the time.
DA implies abuse prior to arrival at defendant's house is abuse by defendant, a direct lie. DA said a child
diagnosed as capable of extreme whopper lying is giving credible testimony without justification at all , let alone
justification to override a Psychiatrist .
Date May 23, 2008

11 : Q 5 ; 53 AM DA confirms if child is telling the truth suggestive questions won 't have much effect.
Application : If was telling the truth, why could the DA so easily manipulate her on counts?
11 :21 : 00 AM DA associates "the good stuff term with indicating a sex abuser, which expert denies.
3:31 :30 PM DA associates dates with counts to pin down for jury the time frame for each count
Misconduct Summary
DA confirms with expert if a child is telling the truth the child won 't be very suggestible yet the day before, DA
easily manipulated ' s testimony from 2 - 3 counts to over 21 , implying wasn 't telling the truth . The
DA did not expose or submit to that truth . DA over the course of the trial and especially on this day exposes a
deep seated fantasy that "the good stuff means sex abuser in his mind and even though refuted by an expert, uses
his lying point the following day , May 27. A particularly subtle act of embellishing speculation occurred when
DA moved to correspond dates with counts, thus making a framework for considering the counts actually
happened when they did not.
Date May 27, 2008

9:37 : 21 AM - 9:43:07 AM Misc.
9 : 43 : 08 AM - 10:25:15 AM Prosecutor
9: 46:45 AM Crime occurred in Clatsop County
Misconduct: Assuming there was a crime, lie to jury, imagined scenario, opinion not fact
9: 48 :34 AM Election to associate all 42 counts with separate blocks of time, 3 mo . to 6 mo ..
Disregards coached testimony of 2- 3 counts and DA coached testimony of 21 counts.
Misconduct: pure speculation of times, imagined scenario, opinion not fact
9:52 : 11 AM More likely there was a lot more oral sex on victim than on defendant
Misconduct: speculative lie to jury there was any sex, emphasis of imagined scenario, not
fact
9:53 : 00 AM Count 22 for instance was defendant touching vagina
Misconduct: speculative lie to jury touching vagina happened , imagined scenario, not fact
9: 53:30 AM How many possible crimes? . ... I submit it happened a lot
Misconduct: speculative lie to jury any crime happened , submitting imaginations not facts
9: 53 :57 AM 21 is one more than fingers and toes, it means a number you can ' t count on fingers and toes .
Misconduct: speculation not supported by any professional witness, lie to jury
9:54: 09 AM DA says she said on stand it happened lots and lots of times
Challenge : I don 't remember her saying that phrase " lots and lots" only 2, 3, and 21
Misconduct : embellishing a lie to jiifylo imply more counts than alleged
”
9: 54 : 20 AM DA submits defendant committed these kinds of crimes hundreds of times

Challenge: I remember her saying only 2, 3, and after DA 's coaching 21
Misconduct: embellishing lie to jury implying more counts than he could coach witness to
say
9:54:38 AM Must show defendant knowingly had deviant sexual intercourse, explains sodomy counts
Challenge: Can 't knowingly do something that didn 't happen
Misconduct : lie to jury to imply any sexual contact occurred
9 : 56 : 25 AM Second charges sexual abuse in first degree, touching sexual or intimate parts to arouse or
gratify
6/17/2008
Page 6 of 7
Misconduct: Setting up framework for lie to jury, imagined scenario, opinion not fact
9: 58 :36 AM Direct and circumstantial evidence - eyewitnesses, chain of events - jury can believe anyone
Misconduct: Although this may be law , there is no direction to seek truth .
10 : 04 : 04 AM She has worse credibility problems than most other kids, said he rubbed vagina w /fingers,
penis
Challenge : She lies worse than other kids so how can she be believed ?
Misconduct : lie to jury by repetitive catharsis on lying then repeating the lies as fact
10 : 05 : 09 AM Said defendant's beard hurt inside of legs
Challenge: Hair cannot hurt one person 's skin without hurting the one with hair.
Lily Kelly says her husband ' s face was never marked from being rubbed raw.
Misconduct : lie to jury by repeating a lie as fact
10 : 13 : 00 AM Annie's instincts true? Digging deeper to discover or create a vacuum requiring made up
truth ?
Challenge: If jury couldn't tell was lying, was Annie projecting?
Misconduct: lie to jury, speculative conjecture, opinion not fact
10 : 15 : 27 AM It all shows this happened many dozen , hundreds of times.
Challenge : If each gets 8.3 years, isn ' t it important to show how times grow to 100' s?
Misconduct : lie of omission to jury, complete speculation on 100's
10 : 16: 19 AM Lily said you could get porn on the TV in the bedroom
Challenge: if porn is available by cable, how was it not available in Tom Jr.'s several
homes?
Misconduct: lie of omission to jury
10: 25:21 AM - 11 : 22 : 15 AM Defense
11 : 22 : 26 AM - 11:46: 25 AM Prosecutor
11 : 22:26 AM It's about motives, asked if any pornography in house, there is no evidence, they'd have to
lie
Answer : Porn on their website profiles means there is porn on the computer (s ) in their
house .
See : Tom Jr . http:// profiles. yahoo .com /flyingfish 52 ( cool link to M ww. penisbot . com )
’
See Anne http : //profiles . yahoo. com /plzernlace (cool link to www.satinslippers. com )
Misconduct: lie to jury , speculation , emphatic opinion not fact
11 :23 : 12 AM It was not a failed investigation
Answer: Failed to discover above information on the parents computer(s)
Misconduct: lie to jury, conjecture, opinion not fact
11 : 29: 09 AM Do you want to change your story suggests it was a story and it 's not true.
Answer: It was a story and not true - also denies expert testimony on May 23 .
Misconduct : lie to jury, imagined scenario, opinion not fact
11:31:26 AM not imi motive
Answer : No more speculation than DA 's side. Motives see May 20, 5 : 07:24-36
Misconduct : lie to jury, imagined scenario, opinion not fact
11 : 32 : 22 AM Sex abused kids have problems with lying
Answer : the child was abused for years before custody changed - experts said all kids lie
Misconduct : lie to jury , imagined scenario, opinion not fact
11 :34: 16 AM You are entitled to disregard expert testimony particularly on if will tell
Answer : DA is taking the word of a documented whopper liar over expert testimony .
Misconduct: Encouraging jury to lie to themselves on expert testimony, opinion not fact
11 :35:40 AM Do you think a little girl would watch pornography over and over?
Answer: Of course, little kids want to repeat fun experiences again, again.
Misconduct: lie to jury , imagined scenario, opinion not fact
11 :38:46 AM Back to the beginning, no motive, nobody ' s got any axe to grind against the defendant
Answer : Her email '1 don ' t care about your problems any more than you care about mine"
Implies case is retribution for failure to take her kids too, enabling parent freedom days .
Misconduct : lie to jury , imagined scenario, opinion not fact
11 : 40 : 35 AM ejaculate went on edge , horrible deeds on back of cushion , no other explanation
Answer : Semen only sperm heads could have been carried there in pants up to 25 years ago
6/ 17/2008
Page 7 of 7
and years of sitting on cushions would have shaken sperm heads to undersides of cushions.
11 : 43: 13 AM Why "The Good Stuff ? Why secret?
Answers: So kid would have something more polite to say . Tom is on the spot creative.
Misconduct : create false image to jury , ignored expert testimony
11 :45: 01 AM Little girls are princesses
Answer: Some are not. Depends on being raised well which wasn 't at first .
Alternative: Grandparents helped transition from abused to loved .
11 : 45:45 AM Call a man who would sexually abuse his granddaughter horrible, despicable, evil
11 :46: 08 AM This evil man needs to be held accountable, tell him he did it and is guilty
Misconduct: complete lie to jury, implying jury should make up for others
11 : 46 :30 AM - 12 : 03:46 AM Judge
Misconduct Summary
DA's lie count is shocking in closing argument and final closing . It’s surprising the jury was so gullible to believe
the DA . The variety of lies spans many categories, lies of omission to mislead the jury, lies of speculation , lies of
failure to consider or mention possible motives, alternate explanations, availability of pornography in parent's
home(s) by computer and TV, so many that for accuracy readers should explore each misconduct in the timeline
and realize there may be more to discover .
Date May 28, 2008

DA Brown did not speak .
Jurors polled on votes provided no reasons and appeared to have been guessing the defendant into the pen .
Date May 29, 2008

Front page story in the Daily Astorian , byline author Joe Gamm wasn 't at trial , said he got the information from
the DA ' s office . So it 's more lies from DA Brown .
Paragraph 3 Defendant did not show pornographic videos to or assault his granddaughter. Speculation, lie not
fact .
Paragraph 6, 7 Kelly did not yell or shout but spoke in a calm voice. For proof trial CD May 28 2008, 3:56:34
Paragraph 8 Twelve police officers were not present . Eyewitnesses said two escorted him out . Lie not fact.
Paragraph 10 The good guy is in jail . The case was a real win for the good guys? Speculation, lie not fact.
Paragraph 11 The true victim is the innocent defendant . The false accuser is to be praised ? Speculation , not
fact .
Misconduct Summary
DA publishes his false speculations, false assessments, and false self glorification , praising the wrong person .
Misconduct Review
DA Brown is taking the position of a social parasite interpreting facts to fit his agenda instead of serving the
truth . The DA fails to consider alternative explanations of the child 's testimony, including the suggestions of
several expert witnesses that she may be lying and fails to ask or conceive of motives for That lyinglmd the
misguidance of her female parent which poisoned the relationships of that family with one pair of grandparents.
The true story is DA Ron Brown was the evil one in this case and the office which employs and supervises him
should be examined for evil also.
6/17/2008
Page 1 of 2
Scott Morrill
From: Overcomer Man [overcomer.man@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday , June 17 , 2008 3: 30 PM
To: Scott Morrill
Subject: Cover letter to Oregon State Bar
Dear Mr. Morrill,
A slightly improved version is in the mail with the following cover letter. If you don't receive the
Priority Mail packet in a timely manner, let me know and I' ll send it with FTR CD's again. Thank you
for your attention on this matter.
Sincerely ,
Kirk Fraser
Forwarded message
350 NE 6th
June 16, 2008
Scott A. Morrill
Oregon State Bar
P. O. Box 231935
Tigard , OR 97281-1935
503.431 . 6344 (direct line )
smprrill@pfoar.org
Mr . Morrill ,
RE: Misconduct Complaint on Clatsop County DA Ron Brown
The enclosed materials are the evidence for this complaint against Clatsop County DA Ron Brown
consisting of : 6 FTR CD 's, 1 copy of Daily Astorian front page story May 29, 1 letter requesting
mistrial , one Preliminary Misconduct Report . The designation Preliminary refers to the fact that these
few instances of misconduct reported by an amateur should easily be expanded by a professional .
Dozens of instances of lying, speculation , misinterpreting evidence in imagined scenarios

conjecture and opinions not identified in any way as what if possibilities to the jury but presented or
implied as facts are alleged with support by indexed times into the accompanying FTR CD's of
State v. Thomas Kelly 06 -1238. Occasionally unique forms of lying may be covered .
A major thrust of his lies were to deny the defendant due process of holding him innocent until proven
guilty by opening with accusations of guilt and sticking to them regardless of other interpretations of the
evidence. Perhaps the current court procedure of giving the prosecution both opening and final closing
should be changed .
6/17/2008
Page 2 of 2
I request prosecution to the fullest extend of the Bar's rules which would sentence him consecutively as he asked
for innocent Tom Kelly to be sentenced . If possible this would sentence him to consecutive periods of
disbarment, say 6 months for each instance in each case you investigate. It would be poetic justice if that were to
equal 166 years.
Further, since his office in Clatsop County is run by Joshua Marquis who has published materials in denial of the
findings of the book Actual Innocence and the Innocence Projects it spawned in many law schools, I request full
investigation of his cases looking for similar misconduct .
Sincerely,
Kirk W. Fraser
503-728-4894
Overcomer. man @gmaiI .com
6/ 17 /2008
From: Kirk Fraser
To: OSB CAO Intake
Subject: Re: CAO Attorney Complaint
Date: Saturday, February 16, 2019 8:51:55 AM
PS Please also correct my typo in line 1. "Article" should read "Amendment."
Thanks,
Kirk Fraser
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 8:49 AM Kirk Fraser <overcomer.man@gmail.com> wrote:

Please correct a typo in my complaint in line 9. "churches to" should read "charges".
Thanks,
Kirk Fraser
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 1:04 AM <cao@osbar.org> wrote:
Oregon State Bar
To: Kirk W. Fraser 2/16/2019 1:04:12 AM

Mr Kirk W. Fraser
13640 River Front Road
Secondary Phone:
Email: overcomer.man@gmail.com

Mr Ronald Brown
PO Box 149
Astoria, OR 97103
Primary Phone: 503 325-8581
Secondary Phone:
COMPLAINT
DA Ron Brown will violate the U.S. Constitution Article 5 by tryining Thomas M.
Kelly a third time for the same alleged crime instead of releasing him as the
Constitution requires. This braking of Constitutional Law is scheduled to happen
approximately Feb. 26 at 9AM unless updated by notice in the Courthouse. Mr.
Brown's scheduled actions thus violate the OREGON RULES OF
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT RULE 3.8 SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A
PROSECUTOR The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: (a) refrain from
prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable
cause. The 5th Amendment maes Mr. Kelly immune from the churches to Mr.
Brown is trying a person he knows by the 5th Amendment to be innocent. There is
no need to ask Mr. Brown if he is violating this rule since the 5th Amendment is
clear proof so Mr. Brown's only response would be to lie to the Bar. Since Mr.
Brown is a liberal Democrat, lying, obstruction of justice, denial of Truth instead of
seeking the Truth, and resistance to the Truth is his common behavior. His
allegations against Mr. Kelly have no more truth than the false allegations brought
by Democrats against President Trump. The last trial of Mr. Kelly also violated the
5th Amendment and this was reported to the Bar, but the Bar staff at the time
accepted Mr. Brown's fake response and did no actual investigation, showing the
staff at that time was also Democrat Satan seekers instead of Republican Truth
Seekers. I can only pray the current bar staff is interested in true justice in this
case.
ATTACHMENTS
From: Kirk Fraser
To: OSB CAO Intake
Subject: Re: CAO Attorney Complaint
Date: Saturday, February 16, 2019 8:49:31 AM
Please correct a typo in my complaint in line 9. "churches to" should read "charges".
Thanks,
Kirk Fraser
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 1:04 AM <cao@osbar.org> wrote:
Oregon State Bar
To: Kirk W. Fraser 2/16/2019 1:04:12 AM

Mr Kirk W. Fraser
Secondary Phone:

Mr Ronald Brown
PO Box 149
Astoria, OR 97103
Secondary Phone:
COMPLAINT
Brown is trying a person he knows by the 5th Amendment to be innocent. There is
no need to ask Mr. Brown if he is violating this rule since the 5th Amendment is
clear proof so Mr. Brown's only response would be to lie to the Bar. Since Mr.
Brown is a liberal Democrat, lying, obstruction of justice, denial of Truth instead of
seeking the Truth, and resistance to the Truth is his common behavior. His
allegations against Mr. Kelly have no more truth than the false allegations brought
by Democrats against President Trump. The last trial of Mr. Kelly also violated the
5th Amendment and this was reported to the Bar, but the Bar staff at the time
accepted Mr. Brown's fake response and did no actual investigation, showing the
staff at that time was also Democrat Satan seekers instead of Republican Truth
Seekers. I can only pray the current bar staff is interested in true justice in this
case.
ATTACHMENTS
Daniel Atkinson
From: cao@osbar.org
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 1:04 AM
To: overcomer.man@gmail.com
Cc: OSB CAO Intake
2/16/2019 1:04:12 AM To: Kirk W. Fraser
Mr Kirk W. Fraser
Secondary Phone:
Mr Ronald Brown
PO Box 149
Astoria, OR 97103
Secondary Phone:
COMPLAINT
1
Brown is trying a person he knows by the 5th Amendment to be innocent. There
is no need to ask Mr. Brown if he is violating this rule since the 5th Amendment
is clear proof so Mr. Brown's only response would be to lie to the Bar. Since Mr.
Brown is a liberal Democrat, lying, obstruction of justice, denial of Truth instead
of seeking the Truth, and resistance to the Truth is his common behavior. His
allegations against Mr. Kelly have no more truth than the false allegations
brought by Democrats against President Trump. The last trial of Mr. Kelly also
violated the 5th Amendment and this was reported to the Bar, but the Bar staff
at the time accepted Mr. Brown's fake response and did no actual investigation,
showing the staff at that time was also Democrat Satan seekers instead of
Republican Truth Seekers. I can only pray the current bar staff is interested in
true justice in this case.
ATTACHMENTS
2
Jennifer Mount
From: cao@osbar.org
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2020 12:01 PM
To: cadillacbranden69@yahoo.com
12/18/2020 12:00:31 PM To: Branden Ledsome
Mr Branden Ledsome
3222 101 N #8
gearhart , OR 97138
Secondary Phone:
Email: cadillacbranden69@yahoo.com
Ronald Brown
Astoria oregon
,
Secondary Phone:
COMPLAINT
My name is Branden ledsome. I am filing a complaint against DA Ron Brown for

abuse of bower and bias/racist remarks made to me in front of witnesses after
asking him why plantiff boughton wasn't being charged with domestic assault.
his response was he wont and does not half too and that me being " a big ol
white boy" was enough to make a case against me. a week later give or take i
resave a letter from his office stating he was upping my charges to Unlawful
use of a weapon/Menacing constituting domestic violence. he has my phone
containing evidence and has refused to release my phone or its content to my
public defender. this has been going on for 10 months now and because I'm
1
poor i am being railroaded by this man. i am a single dad with no family support
with a foot injury that will require reconstructive surgery and the added
Harassment and dirty tactics are causing unnecessary stress. in my opinion he
is dangerous to the community and anyone who questions him. apparently I'm
not the only one who feels this way because as i type this out i have a
newspaper ( US Observer) with 3 pages full of all the wrongdoing and illegal
acts he is being accused of. Thank you for reading this and i hope this does not
fall on deaf ears.
ATTACHMENTS
2
Linn Davis
From: Linn Davis on behalf of OSB Client Assistance Office

Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 9:34 AM
Subject: LDD 2001756 Brown (Ledsome)
Attachments: 2020 1221 Original inquiry.pdf
Subject: LDD 2001756

Ronald Brown (Branden Ledsome)
Dear Mr. Brown:

The Oregon State Bar Client Assistance Office (CAO) has received the attached correspondence from
Branden Ledsom expressing concerns about your conduct. The CAO is responsible for reviewing
concerns regarding Oregon lawyers. Under Bar Rule of Procedure 2.5 and as resources permit, CAO
determines the manner and extent of review required to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to
support a reasonable belief that lawyer misconduct may have occurred warranting a referral to Oregon
State Bar Disciplinary Counsel. Misconduct means a violation of the rules of professional conduct and
applicable statutes that govern lawyer conduct in Oregon. The concerns expressed may implicate the
provisions of RPC 8.4(a)(7).
In order for me to conduct a fair and informed review, I would like to have your account of the matter
no later than February 1, 2021. I am able to grant an extension of the time to respond for good cause,
if requested before the deadline. Please submit your response via email to cao@osbar.org, using the
subject line LDD 2001756. It is not necessary to also mail a paper copy of your response.
A copy of your response will be sent to Mr. Ledsome. If appropriate, I may request his comment. Please
keep in mind that all material submitted by the parties in the course of this review is considered public
record and both parties will receive copies. Please limit your response and any documents you send to
the ethics issues presented. I am confident I will receive your full cooperation in this matter. You should
be aware, however, that if you fail to respond to this request, this matter may be referred to Disciplinary
Counsel.
After I review all documentation and information gathered in this matter I will determine if there is
sufficient evidence warranting a referral to Disciplinary Counsel for further evaluation pursuant to BR
2.5(b)(2).
Thank you in advance for your cooperation. I look forward to a fair and expeditious review of this matter.
Linn Davis
503-431-6332
ldavis@osbar.org
BCC’d: Branden Ledsome

Email Submissions to cao@osbar.org. Use subject line LDD 2001756
1
Oregon State Bar • 16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road • PO Box 231935 • Tigard, OR 97281-1935 • www.osbar.org
2
Linn Davis
From: Linn Davis on behalf of OSB Client Assistance Office

Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2021 1:32 PM
Attachments: 2021 0127 From Brown Response doc06772720210127093448.pdf

Dear Mr. Ledsome:

Lawyer Ronald Brown has sent us the attached correspondence in answer to your concerns. Please
review the attachment and provide us with any additional information you wish to have us evaluate no
later than February 25, 2021. If you do not provide any additional information, we will review this case
without further input.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Linn Davis
503-431-6332
ldavis@osbar.org

Email Submissions to cao@osbar.org. Use subject line LDD 2001756
1
Bcc: "rbrown@co.clatsop.or.us"; "cadillacbranden69@yahoo.com"
Date: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 11:56:05 AM

Dear Branden Ledsome:

This matter has been referred to me for review and resolution. I have reviewed all the
relevant materials submitted in connection with your complaint regarding Ronald Brown.
The Client Assistance Office (CAO) is responsible for reviewing concerns regarding
Oregon lawyers. Under Bar Rule of Procedure 2.5 and as resources permit, CAO
determines the manner and extent of review required to decide whether there is
sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that misconduct may have occurred
warranting a referral to Disciplinary Counsel’s Office. Misconduct means a violation of
the rules of professional conduct and applicable statutes that govern lawyer conduct in
Oregon.
You have alleged that in a conversation that took place in District Attorney Ron Brown’s
office after you had been arrested and charged with pointing a gun at your girlfriend
during an argument and threatening to kill her, Mr. Brown made a racially discriminatory
remark about you. Your conversation with Mr. Brown was witnessed by an employee of
his office, and this employee has submitted a written statement denying that Mr. Brown
used any racially discriminatory epithets. You and Mr. Brown do not appear to have
similar recollections of this conversation, but Mr. Brown’s recollection of events is
corroborated by a witness. We conclude that there is no sufficient basis to warrant a
referral to Disciplinary Counsel’s Office for further review.
I hope we have been of assistance in obtaining Mr. Brown’s response to your concerns.
Thank you for bringing them to our attention. If you disagree with this disposition, you
may have the matter reviewed by General Counsel, provided we receive your request for
review in writing no later than December 15, 2021. The decision of General Counsel is
final.
Sincerely,
Martha M. Hicks
CAO Attorney

503-620-0222
cao@osbar.org
Oregon State Bar • 16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road • PO Box 231935 • Tigard, OR
97281-1935 • www.osbar.org
Please note: Your email communication may be subject to public disclosure. Written
communications to or from the Oregon State Bar are public records that, with limited
exceptions, must be made available to anyone upon request in accordance with
Oregon's public records laws.

Liza Arellano Boudon
From: Emily Reyneke <csufiredog@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 10:49 AM
To: OSB Client Assistance Office
Subject: Misconduct Complaint
Dear Oregon State Bar,
I wish to file a complaint against Clatsop County District Attorney Ron Brown, OSB#791726. I believe that he committed
a number of infractions of the Rules of Professional Conduct. This includes having 10 conflicts of interest that he failed to
disclose, involvement in a matter then filing and attempting to prosecute 2 frivolous and malicious criminal cases
personally, as well as encouraging individuals to destroy digital evidence of his involvement, as well as personal
friendships with the purported victims. He also made filings to the court without making required (the templates he
hastily used even show on the record the requirement for) good faith efforts to confer before filing, gross negligence on
pleadings (sloppy cut and paste jobs then failing to mark required responses, et al. There is reasonable suspicion to
believe that he also encouraged the inappropriate conduct of two Astoria Police officers who in turn repeatedly
harassed me 12 times and tried to violate 5th amendment/Miranda et al rights.
I will email more information to you, most likely this evening.
-Emily Reyneke
--
"Success exists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
"Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far" - Teddy Roosevelt
"Keep your eyes on the stars, and your feet on the ground." - Teddy Roosevelt
"Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure...than to rank with
those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor
defeat." - Teddy Roosevelt
1

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2023 8:42 AM
Subject: DPA 2300146 Brown (Reyneke)
Attachments: 2023 0203 Original inquiry BROWN (Reyneke).msg
Subject: DPA 2300146

Ronald Brown (Emily Reyneke)
Dear Ronald Brown:

The Oregon State Bar Client Assistance Office (CAO) has received the attached correspondence from
Emily Reyneke expressing concerns about your conduct. The CAO is responsible for reviewing concerns
regarding the conduct of lawyers in Oregon. Under Bar Rule of Procedure 2.5 and as resources permit,
CAO determines the manner and extent of review required to decide whether there is sufficient
evidence to support a reasonable belief that lawyer misconduct may have occurred warranting a
referral to Oregon State Bar Disciplinary Counsel. Misconduct means a violation of the rules of
professional conduct and applicable statutes that govern lawyer conduct in Oregon. The concerns
expressed may implicate the provisions of RPC 3.8(a).
In order for the CAO to conduct a fair and informed review, we request your account of the matter no
later than March 10, 2023. We are able to grant an extension of the time to respond for good cause, if
requested before the deadline. Please submit your response via email to cao@osbar.org, using the
subject line DPA 2300146. Alternatively, you may mail a paper copy of your response and relevant
supporting materials if file size requires it.
Please keep in mind that all material submitted for CAO review is considered public record and all
parties will receive copies. Please limit your response and any documents you send to the potential
ethics issues identified above.
After the CAO reviews all documentation and information gathered in this matter, we will determine if
there is sufficient evidence warranting a referral to Disciplinary Counsel for further evaluation pursuant
to BR 2.5(b). Failure to respond to this request may also result in referral to Disciplinary Counsel.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Respectfully,
Daniel P. Atkinson
Ext. 336
1
503-620-0222
cao@osbar.org
Oregon State Bar • 16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road • PO Box 231935 • Tigard, OR 97281-1935 •
www.osbar.org
communications to or from the Oregon State Bar are public records that, with limited
exceptions, must be made available to anyone upon request in accordance with Oregon's
public records laws.
BCC’d: Emily Reyneke

2
April 10, 2023
SENT VIA REGULAR MAIL AND EMAIL
Ronald Brown Ronald Brown

Clatsop County District Attorney's Office rbrown@co.clatsop.or.us
749 Commercial
P.O. Box 149
Astoria, OR 97103
Re: Subject: DPA 2300146

Dear Ronald Brown:
I have not received your response to my letter of February 17, 2023 regarding the
inquiry about your conduct received from Emily Reyneke. Find attached another copy of that
inquiry and my letter to you.
Failure to respond to inquiries from the Client Assistance Office will result in this matter
being referred to Oregon State Bar Disciplinary Counsel for further evaluation. Please respond
to this letter no later than April 17, 2023.
Respectfully,
Daniel P. Atkinson
Ext. 336
DPA/jmm
Attachment
cc w/o attach: Emily Reyneke

01c

From: Ron Brown <RBROWN@clatsopcounty.gov>

Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 2:06 PM
To: OSB Client Assistance Office Intake
Subject: FW:
Attachments: doc10079620230410140058.pdf
My ﬁle shows that I emailed this back in February. But who knows, anyway, here it is again. Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: da5@clatsopcounty.gov <da5@clatsopcounty.gov>
To: Ron Brown <RBROWN@clatsopcounty.gov>
Subject:
-------------------
TASKalfa 7052ci
[00:17:c8:4b:27:e5]
-------------------
This message has been prepared on resources owned by Clatsop County, Oregon. It is subject to the Internet and Online
Services Use Policy and Procedures of Clatsop County.
1

Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 9:41 PM
Subject: Ron Brown complaint
Dear Oregon state Bar CAO,
Additional information pertinent to the complaint against Ron Brown has come to light. There has been additional
information that has surfaced regarding the malicious and baseless criminal complaint that Ron Brown filed against me
involving Jeff Hazen, Sunset Empire Transportation District and Astoria School District et al. and has failed to file the
appropriate dismissal.
On February 14, 2023 Ron Brown had a subordinate unprepared attorney "appear" at the arraignment Zoom hearing for
him. Jeff Hazen, knowing that his employer Sunset Empire Transportation District was going to be holding an executive
session to consider disciplining him, appeared at the arraignment hearing in an attempt to bolster malicious/bad
faith/retaliatory claims.. Minutes after the arraignment hearing, the Daily Astorian newspaper was notified by Mr. Hazen
or by Mr. Brown about the arraignment and ultimately causing the Daily Astorian to publish a one sided article and
tamper with the potential jury pool. On February 15, 2023 the Board of Sunset Empire Transportation District voted to
suspend Mr. Hazen for 3 days without pay stemming from the misconduct complaint that I had filed against him several
months ago when I was an employee of Sunset Empire Transportation District and encompassed the meeting that Ron
Brown is maliciously/inappropriately trying to take issue with without a basis in law.. Jeff Hazen unlawfully retaliated
against me repeatedly including in seeking my termination and filing the malicious report with the assistant chief of
police of Astoria PD and ultimately Ron Brown which in part led to the charging document (the other part having 2
conflicts of interest). Ron Brown and his subordinates (now 2 different subordinates have become involved) have failed
to file the appropriate motion to dismiss and continue to erode the court's authority and waste county and state
resources as well as the court's time in 3 different counties so far given that Clatsop County is having to find judges from
different counties to preside because of Kirk Wintermute's conflicts of interest and his own misconduct.
Emily Reyneke
--
"Success exists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
"Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far" - Teddy Roosevelt
"Keep your eyes on the stars, and your feet on the ground." - Teddy Roosevelt
"Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure...than to rank with
those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor
defeat." - Teddy Roosevelt
1
From: OSB Client Assistance Office Intake

Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 1:29 PM
Attachments: U 2023 0410 From Brown.msg

Dear Emily Reyneke:

Ronald Brown has sent us the attached correspondence in answer to your concerns. While waiting for
Mr. Brown’s response, you provided additional information. I will provide that correspondence to Mr.
Brown with any additional materials you submit in response to this letter.
Please review the attachment and provide us with any additional information you wish to have us
evaluate no later than May 22, 2023. If you do not provide any additional information, we will send
your previous correspondence to Mr. Brown and allow him to respond.
Respectfully,
Daniel P. Atkinson
Ext. 336

503-620-0222
cao@osbar.org
www.osbar.org
Please note: Your email communication may be subject to public disclosure. Written communications
to or from the Oregon State Bar are public records that, with limited exceptions, must be made
available to anyone upon request in accordance with Oregon's public records laws.

1
2

Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: DPA 2300146 Brown (Reyneke)
Attachments: image005.gif; image001.jpg
The Bar should consider Mr. Brown's response as a deliberate, albeit reckless, attempt to mislead the Bar instead of
providing a verifiable and factually based response.
Mr. Brown tried inappropriately and nepotistically to sway the Bar's opinion and investigation when he tried to highlight
his years as a prosecutor and lawyer. However, in the context of his misconduct and the complaint, those years of
purported experience only show that he has had decades of reason to know better (and know the RPC's) than to engage
in misconduct and unethical actions.
Mr. Brown's response is nearly entirely false and misleading statements not based on fact. And in at least a couple of
cases were admissions of additional misconduct that the Bar should consider.
In his response Mr. Brown admitted that he filed the two criminal cases "following complaints" from individuals that he
knew (Jeff Hazen and Heidi Wintermute/Kirk Wintermute), instead of following police reports being forwarded to him.
This shows at least two issues of misconduct. He allowed individuals who he knew, to deliberately use his position for
their own retaliatory unlawful gain. This is not just a misconduct issue, but also a criminal act on Mr. Brown's part.
Secondly, it lends to the allegation that Mr. Brown deliberately and inappropriately colluded with personnel of the
Astoria Police Department to achieve a specific outcome instead of allowing Astoria Police officers to objectively and
organically investigate. Mr. Brown inappropriately used his position to impress upon APD personnel, including in giving
direction to APD to continue to harass me or other individuals even after an individual has invoked their 5th amendment
or Miranda rights.
Thirdly, he admitted to knowing the individuals but deliberately tried to downplay how he knows them instead of
addressing the conflict of interest issue. He did this because he could not refute that he professionally and personally in
and outside his direct line of work, criminal prosecution, knew the individuals which ultimately led to him filing the
criminal cases that he's already admitted to. Additionally the Bar must take his response/action as deceptive.
There is nothing factually that irrefutably states truth in what he wrote, including but not limited to not providing
anything justification, i.e. contents of conversations with individuals directing them to call the police and file a report if
they believe that a crime occurred. There is none of that. And there is none of that because Mr. Brown did nothing of
the sort. Additionally, he's admitted to the phone calls. It is fact that his staff does not transfer phone calls to him from
individuals. Which means he gives out his direct line to people he knows personally or professionally. And Heidi
Wintermute would have no means to get that phone number except through her husband Judge Wintermute who
knows Mr Brown both personally and professionally and knowing Mr Brown herself.
Additionally and slightly comparatively, in October 2022 a heavily intoxicated register sex offender parolee deliberately
drove head on at a transit bus I was driving at a bus stop nearly striking the bus then partially breaching the bus alarming
the passengers. That was immediately reported to 911. There were some 911 dispatch blunders the day of the incident
due to new staffing/lack of experienced staff, but ultimately the day after the incident, Warrenton police officer
Dalrymple established more than sufficient probable cause to cite/arrest the suspect John Ewen for wreckless driving
and submitted it to Mr Brown for prosecution. John Ewen has an extensive criminal history in Clatsop County. Yet, Mr.
1
Brown did nothing to prosecute John Ewen for the incident in which he could have killed or seriously injured more than
20 people.
On Mon, May 1, 2023, 1:29 PM OSB Client Assistance Office Intake <cao@osbar.org> wrote:

Dear Emily Reyneke:
Ronald Brown has sent us the attached correspondence in answer to your concerns. While waiting for
Mr. Brown’s response, you provided additional information. I will provide that correspondence to Mr.
Brown with any additional materials you submit in response to this letter.
Respectfully,
The link ed image cannot be displayed. The file may hav e been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
Daniel P. Atkinson
Ext. 336
The link ed image cannot be

displayed. The file may hav e been
mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify
that the link points to the correct
file and location. Client Assistance Office
503-620-0222
cao@osbar.org
www.osbar.org
2
communications to or from the Oregon State Bar are public records that, with limited exceptions,
must be made available to anyone upon request in accordance with Oregon's public records laws.
---------- Forwarded message ----------

To: OSB Client Assistance Office Intake <cao@osbar.org>
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2023 21:05:49 +0000
Subject: FW:
My file shows that I emailed this back in February. But who knows, anyway, here it is again. Thanks.
Subject:
-------------------
TASKalfa 7052ci
[00:17:c8:4b:27:e5]
-------------------
This message has been prepared on resources owned by Clatsop County, Oregon. It is subject to the Internet and
Online Services Use Policy and Procedures of Clatsop County.
3

Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: DPA 2300146 Brown (Reyneke)
The email that was sent a couple of days ago was not supposed to have been sent yet as it was not completed. This
email is an extension of that original response it was sent a couple of days ago.
Mr. Brown maliciously filed baseless cases against me that are not based on fact and law. As a licensed attorney in
Oregon and moreso as a prosecutor, he has a legal and ethical obligation to do due diligence BEFORE coming to
conclusions and decisions because if he didn't he'd be bringing meritless cases.
Further evidence that Mr. Brown acted unethically, unprofessionally, unintelligently, and engaged in misconduct is that
Mr. Brown failed to review even the most basic caselaw surrounding "interception of communication" including State v.
Neff which outlines what does and does NOT constitute a violation of the "interception of communication" that
attorneys and even civilians with no legal background can easily find. Had he, he would have found that he has
inconsistent facts that cannot be used AND that the facts do not constitute a criminal act or violation of the
"interception of communication " statute. The ONLY reason that Mr. Brown maliciously brought baseless charges, is
because of his personal and professional associations with individuals and allowing his position to be used for their
personal benefit.
Additionally, Mr. Brown is engaging in additional misconduct by attempting to use this misconduct complaint against
him to have the facts tried before trial and an illegal attempt to get me to talk about facts when I have repeatedly stated
use of 5th amendment and Miranda rights and do have legal representation for the malicious cases, and he is trying to
gain information without my attorney present.
Emily Reyneke
On Mon, May 8, 2023, 9:15 PM Emily Reyneke <csufiredog@gmail.com> wrote:

The Bar should consider Mr. Brown's response as a deliberate, albeit reckless, attempt to mislead the Bar instead of
providing a verifiable and factually based response.
Mr. Brown tried inappropriately and nepotistically to sway the Bar's opinion and investigation when he tried to
highlight his years as a prosecutor and lawyer. However, in the context of his misconduct and the complaint, those
years of purported experience only show that he has had decades of reason to know better (and know the RPC's) than
to engage in misconduct and unethical actions.
Mr. Brown's response is nearly entirely false and misleading statements not based on fact. And in at least a couple of
cases were admissions of additional misconduct that the Bar should consider.
In his response Mr. Brown admitted that he filed the two criminal cases "following complaints" from individuals that he
knew (Jeff Hazen and Heidi Wintermute/Kirk Wintermute), instead of following police reports being forwarded to him.
This shows at least two issues of misconduct. He allowed individuals who he knew, to deliberately use his position for
their own retaliatory unlawful gain. This is not just a misconduct issue, but also a criminal act on Mr. Brown's part.
1
Secondly, it lends to the allegation that Mr. Brown deliberately and inappropriately colluded with personnel of the
Astoria Police Department to achieve a specific outcome instead of allowing Astoria Police officers to objectively and
organically investigate. Mr. Brown inappropriately used his position to impress upon APD personnel, including in giving
direction to APD to continue to harass me or other individuals even after an individual has invoked their 5th
amendment or Miranda rights.
Thirdly, he admitted to knowing the individuals but deliberately tried to downplay how he knows them instead of
addressing the conflict of interest issue. He did this because he could not refute that he professionally and
personally in and outside his direct line of work, criminal prosecution, knew the individuals which ultimately led to him
filing the criminal cases that he's already admitted to. Additionally the Bar must take his response/action as deceptive.
There is nothing factually that irrefutably states truth in what he wrote, including but not limited to not providing
anything justification, i.e. contents of conversations with individuals directing them to call the police and file a report if
they believe that a crime occurred. There is none of that. And there is none of that because Mr. Brown did nothing of
the sort. Additionally, he's admitted to the phone calls. It is fact that his staff does not transfer phone calls to him from
individuals. Which means he gives out his direct line to people he knows personally or professionally. And Heidi
Wintermute would have no means to get that phone number except through her husband Judge Wintermute who
knows Mr Brown both personally and professionally and knowing Mr Brown herself.
Additionally and slightly comparatively, in October 2022 a heavily intoxicated register sex offender parolee deliberately
drove head on at a transit bus I was driving at a bus stop nearly striking the bus then partially breaching the bus
alarming the passengers. That was immediately reported to 911. There were some 911 dispatch blunders the day of the
incident due to new staffing/lack of experienced staff, but ultimately the day after the incident, Warrenton police
officer Dalrymple established more than sufficient probable cause to cite/arrest the suspect John Ewen for wreckless
driving and submitted it to Mr Brown for prosecution. John Ewen has an extensive criminal history in Clatsop County.
Yet, Mr. Brown did nothing to prosecute John Ewen for the incident in which he could have killed or seriously injured
more than 20 people.
On Mon, May 1, 2023, 1:29 PM OSB Client Assistance Office Intake <cao@osbar.org> wrote:

Dear Emily Reyneke:
Ronald Brown has sent us the attached correspondence in answer to your concerns. While waiting
for Mr. Brown’s response, you provided additional information. I will provide that correspondence to
Mr. Brown with any additional materials you submit in response to this letter.
Respectfully,
2
Daniel P. Atkinson
Ext. 336
The link ed image cannot be

displayed. The file may hav e been
mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify
that the link points to the correct
file and location. Client Assistance Office
503-620-0222
cao@osbar.org
www.osbar.org
communications to or from the Oregon State Bar are public records that, with limited exceptions,
must be made available to anyone upon request in accordance with Oregon's public records laws.
---------- Forwarded message ----------

To: OSB Client Assistance Office Intake <cao@osbar.org>
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2023 21:05:49 +0000
Subject: FW:
My file shows that I emailed this back in February. But who knows, anyway, here it is again. Thanks.
3
Subject:
-------------------
TASKalfa 7052ci
[00:17:c8:4b:27:e5]
-------------------
This message has been prepared on resources owned by Clatsop County, Oregon. It is subject to the Internet and
Online Services Use Policy and Procedures of Clatsop County.
4

Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 9:12 AM
Attachments: U 2023 0508 From Reyneke.msg; U 2023 0414 From Reyneke.msg; U 2023 0510 From
Reyneke.msg

Dear Ronald Brown:

Attached is further correspondence we received from Emily Reyneke. At this point, I believe we have
enough information to analyze the ethics issues I have identified.
Please know the Client Assistance Office (CAO) shares the interest of the parties in resolving this
complaint expeditiously. CAO receives a high volume of complaints and we generally address them in
the order they are received. When review is complete, I will promptly notify the parties of the
disposition.
Respectfully,

503-620-0222
cao@osbar.org
www.osbar.org
Please note: Your email communication may be subject to public disclosure. Written communications
to or from the Oregon State Bar are public records that, with limited exceptions, must be made
available to anyone upon request in accordance with Oregon's public records laws.
BCC’d: Emily Reyneke

1

Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 4:36 PM
Subject: Ron Brown
OSB,
There are screenshots of Ron Brown's comments which would warrant reopening of the misconduct complaint against
him. I just haven't been able to access them because of a laptop cable issue. I hope to be able to resolve that issue in the
near future.
Emily Reyneke
1
From: cao@osbar.org
Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2022 4:30 PM
To: maria.cb7463@yahoo.com
To help protect your privacy , Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Oregon State Bar
10/1/2022 4:29:46 PM To: Maria Barbura
Ms. Maria Barbura

8223 N.E multnomah st.
Portland, OR 97220
Primary Phone: (503) 347-1459
Secondary Phone: (503) 347-1459
Email: maria.cb7463@yahoo.com
Mr. Ron Brown

749 Commercial St.
Astoria, OR 97103
Primary Phone: (503) 325-8581
Secondary Phone: Fax:(503)325-9305
COMPLAINT
10/01/2022 Hi OREGON STATE BAR my name is Maria Barbura and my

complaint is about being harrassed and wrongly accused by Ron Brown from
astoria, oregon clatsop county i am targeted by this men who is also asking me
a poor woman for money 6000 and he is charging me improper use of the
emergency communications system(Class A Misdemeanor : ORS 165.570)
fpc#: Disorderly Conduct in the second degree(Class B Misdemeanor:;ORS
166.025) my name is maria barbura and i want to make a complaint i use to live
1
in clatsop county but i moved on 6-02-2022 out of astoria oregon of clatsop
county and i was afraid that the astoria police from clatsop county was going to
kill me and hurt me just because we have a diffrrent background i am a woman
from romania and i lived in clatsop county for many years there and i never
broken any law at all in clatsop county i was missing in june 1 -2022 and ron
brown the clatsop da sent the police to put fear in my husband pavel and
intimidation and also to put fear and intimidation in my mother and brother and
in me maria and we use to live next to the hudak family who made threats to
our family and astoria police did nothing to stop our neighbors from bullying and
discriminating us and putting fear in us i have a heart health condition physical
heart pain and astoria police officer Berry from astoria police went to my former
address to say to my husband pavel officer berry made me and my husband
pavel drug adddicts and we are not drug addicts at all so here are the
misconduct of ron brown the clatsop county court appointed me a lawyer by the
name of christopher kaino but for months he did nothing to help me with my
case he did not do a subpoena to bring my witness pavel he did not get the
video from safeway incident from 5-6-2022 and he did not let me talk no
communication very little so i had to fire him and i am wrongfully accused by
ron brown the only thing i did is i called the ambulance when needed and i
called the local police when needed theres no crime in that everyone call the
ambulance and the local authorities when needed is not a crime we are living in
a free country where we have right as citizens and the right to exercise our
human rights than they gave me a second appointed lawyer who yielled at me
his name is lane borg this happened on 9-2022 in a phone conversation the
only thing i maria asked mr. lane what can i bring that would help me in my
case when i come to meet with you and i was only explaining to mr. lane that i
have not killed anyone why am i being charged like a crime i am inocence and
he said dont talk about pedofil but i was not talking to him about pedofil and he
sounded real angry and mad and before on 8-15-2022 mr. lane borg was angry
why i dont except the pretrial pleadings , mr. lane said i have to tell you if i don't
tell you it's not legal they are saying about the electronic bracelet and except
one emergency call and noconviction but he was very angry when i did not
except the pretrial pleadings , i am inocence not guilty : Ron brown
miscondudct--- he is doing lots of postponments and i did not have a quick
hearing like the constitution of usa says and i was intrampment at the
arraingment with the finger prints twice which is not legal they sent me to do
finger printing twice and i maria asked why do i have to do the finger prints
twice because i already did it once and he is doing a personal vendeta and he
is targeting me a poor woman with heart condition and he knows i have a hear
condition at the first arraingment they did not give me any documentatioan to go
do the finger prints until i asked for documentation and the charges were sent at
a later time after i wrote mr. ron brown a email - i maria wrote i read about you
that you put inocence people in jail and you are not gone put me in jail because
i have proof than later i received the new charges in the mail and he is doing
blackmail which is illegal itls a crime he is doing to me like he did to samuel
from the observator newspaper the state of oregon kept asking mr. samuel from
the observator for money to lower the charges samuel had 10 charges and mr.
ron brown is doing the same to me maria and he is doing racial discrimination
because i am from romania and at the arraingment they put lots of fear in me
and intimidation and they send me to the astoria jail to do the finger prints and
2
its presumption of innocence before found guilty but it looks like he is going
against the constitution of usa he is taking away my constitutional rights which
is illegal the whole case that i am is illegal and its a lot of emotiona distress and
crying and depressed and its affecting my health and i get rectal bleeding
phisical heart pain back pain migraine and i was also at providence here in
portland oregon at the er and the doctor told me that i have a kidney stone so
its lots of abuse from this men ron brown and someone needs to investigate
him he should not be in the power of the da of clatsop county because he puts
inocence people in jail and ron brown is taking away my human rights away and
i know my rights he is wrong to do this because we live in a free country usa
where we all have rights- i almost had a heart attack when i went to the astoria
jail to do the finger prints it was like being in a dark place and very scary and
also ron brown keep dragging me back and forth to the astoria clatsop county
and i am a poor woman and have a very bad heart health problem and the only
thing i did i exerciced my human rights and i don't believe that is a crime i lived
here in usa for a little over 40 years in the usa and i never heard that if a citizen
calls the local police drpartment when needs and calls the local ambulance for
help as neede is a crime like i am being accused by ron brrown clatsop da, so
its a lot of abuse from this men i can not sleep at night anymore and this men
should be fired from the da of clatsop county because when mr. ron brown
became a clatsop county da he sworn in to do his job honestly not to do it his
own way this men is corrupted and i maria barbura i do not owe the state of
oregon any money at all and this guy the state of oregon is asking for 6000
dollars from me and i have not stolen anyone i have not killed anyone we use to
live next to some very bad former neighbors that made threaths towards our
barbura family their names are the hudak kerry martin and crystel louise
thompson who live at 3 halsey rd.#1 in astoria oregon 97103 mr. kerry martin
made the threath that someone or somebody is going to get hurt and it's a
promise but the astoria police did not put in the police report and its a promise
thats why the da did not take it seriously that time last year in 2021 the hudak
family had my treasury check of 1800 dollards in theri possession and i said to
the astoria police department that i like to press charge but the astoria police
did not arrest the hudaks and now mr. ron brown is targeting me maria barbura
who only tried to survive in that prejudiced discriminated county the police and
the da in clatsop county is corrupted and they protect the real criminals and the
pedofils and the drug addics and me an inocence person with health problem
and poor homeless and we had threaths and recently in 9-12-2022 in seaside
oregon a men pulled his suv next to my husbans ford econo line and he asked
my husband are you ready for judgement day - we reported to the police in
seaside it happened at seaside-safeway in seaside oregon someone is putting
a hit men to hurt my family the barbura family and every since june 22-2022 the
clatsop courts is dragging me back and forth to astoria oregon from portland
oregon i do not even live in their county anymore because we have threaths
there in the cltsop county so it's a lot of emotional distress and i loose lots of
blood because it's too much for me since i have the heart problem and i get a
lot o nighmares it is a night mare that i have to deal with ron browns accusation
false accusations and they like to put a lot of fear and intimidation in people ,
ron brown is doing a revenge because when i was missing on 6-1-2022 the
astoria police asked my husband to go look for me and find me but my husband
hardly walk he needs to do hip replacement surgery and officer berry from the
3
astoria police department told pavel if i had a suit case and that i maria went
with another men and that i left my husband so ron brown is doing personal
vendeta and he is doing blackmail - the state of oregon is asking me for 6000
dollars i am a poor woman and i have not stolen or borrowed money from the
state of oregon so why are they asking me for money and i amd inocence not
guilty it's a lot of abuse fear intimidation he is taking my constitutional right away
and they do intrampment at the arraingment with making people go to the jail to
do the fingerprints and also i have not signed anything with the clatsop circuit
court i do not trustt then and you can not make a deal with the devil yeah and i
am wrongfully charged and accused by ron brown someone please investigate
this men because he does not go by usa constitution ok i'll put a copy of what
the police report said back when i had the mail theft in 2021 and i'll put a copy
of ron brown what the obsserver sais about this men he did this to another men
like he is doing to me maria blackmail and asking for money which is blackmail
and blackmail is a crime and when the hudak family did harrassment and
bullying and discrimination and fear the astoria police did nothing i and my
husband we are victims here not criminals like mr. ron brown is accusing me of
just because i called the ambulandce when needed and called the police when
needed and i called the astoria circuit court to ask for help like victims rights
and the courts yielled at me maria and i wanted to talk to the da at the court
house but the kept reffering to our family you people and they never did nothing
for us they let us live in fear and bullying and intimidation and discrimination
from the hudak family who abused their own kids and than they would start
yielling at me and my husband and one time i spoke to officer berry on the
phone from my apartment and he told me you want it to be a crime and i said
no officer berry you said that and after i was missing i spoke to officer berry and
he said how did you make it? when i heard that i just could not believe that the
astoria police department does not care about their own clatsap county citizens
they are all corrupted and taught to put fear and intimidation into people like
myself and my family and mr. ron brown teaches them to put fear in the
witnesses and defendants and family members lot's of discriminated and abuse
and emotional distress i loose lots of sleepless night, worried and afraid i don"t
know why this ron brown is abusing inocent people like myself he knows i have
a heart problem but he does not stop with this harassment and abuse and i was
only exercising my human rights like all the citizens in clatsap county - all over
usa and international., so please someone investigate mr. ron brown the district
of clatsap county- i am a good citizen and i obey all the laws and this men ron
brown wants to make me a bad record and i have a clean record he want to put
me in jail 1 year and 6 months that is crazy i am inocence and he should be the
one that needs to go and be punished foe doing blackmail and asking money
that is not owed to the state of oregon i do not owe the state of oregon nothing
so thank you very much. sincerely:: maria barbura maria.cb7463@yahoo.com
phone 503-347-1459 i am homeless i no longer have an apartment because i
had to move from astoria oregon to portland oregon multnomah county
because i had threats in clatsap county from my former neighbors the hudak
family .
ATTACHMENTS
4
5

Sent: Friday, October 14, 2022 11:32 AM
Subject: SMY 2201412 Brown (Barbura)
Attachments: 2022 1003 Original inquiry BROWN (Barbura).msg

Ronald Brown (Maria Barbura)
Dear Maria Barbura:
The Oregon State Bar has received your complaint regarding Clatsop County District Attorney Ronald
Brown. The Client Assistance Office (CAO) is responsible for reviewing concerns regarding Oregon
lawyers. Under Bar Rule of Procedure 2.5 and as resources permit, CAO determines the manner and
extent of review required to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to support a reasonable
belief that misconduct may have occurred warranting a referral to Disciplinary Counsel. Misconduct
means a violation of the rules of professional conduct and applicable statutes that govern lawyer
conduct in Oregon.
You contend that Mr. Brown has improperly pursued criminal charges against you. Oregon Rule of
Professional Conduct (ORPC) 3.8 prohibits a prosecutor from pursuing charges that the prosecutor
knows are not supported by probable cause. Probable cause is a very low standard that generally calls
for a finding that there is a reasonable basis for believing that an accused had committed the crime in
question. A prosecutor’s job is to determine whether to pursue charges and which charges are
appropriate. This decision is the best example of how much discretion a prosecutor has in the criminal
process. It is not uncommon for defendants to offer a different version of events than that offered by
other witnesses. That you contest the charges is not sufficient evidence to established that Mr. Brown
has pursued charges he knows to be unsupported.
receive your request for review in writing no later than November 4, 2022. The decision of General
Counsel is final.
Respectfully,

503-431-6480
cao@osbar.org

1
2

Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 4:44 PM
Subject: SMY 2201412 Brown (Barbura)
Attachments: U 2023 0627 From Barbura.pdf

Ronald Brown (Maria Barbura)
Dear Ronald Brown:
Attached is further correspondence we have received from Maria Barbura. As you know, we
dismissed this matter because we did not find a sufficient basis to support a reasonable belief that
any ethical violation had occurred. However, we interpret this most recent letter as expressing intent
to seek review of that decision.
Please review the attachment. You are not required to respond. Nevertheless, if there is any
additional information you wish to have us consider regarding this matter, please provide it no later
than September 6, 2023. Address your response to the Client Assistance Office.
This matter will then be submitted to General Counsel for review. After General Counsel has reviewed
the matter, they will notify all parties of the disposition. General Counsel decisions are final.
Respectfully,

503-431-6480
cao@osbar.org
BCC’d: Maria Barbura


Clatsop District Attorney Ron Brown Combined Bar Complaints 12-1-23

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clatsop District Attorney Ron Brown Combined Bar Complaints 12-1-23

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

August 6, 2018

Re: Subject: LDD 1801227

Email submissions to: cao@osbar.org Use subject line: LDD 1801227

Re: Subject: LDD 1801227

Email submissions to: cao@osbar.org Use subject line: LDD 1801227

Re: Subject: LDD 1801227

Re: Subject: LDD 1801227

cc: Ronald Brown, Attorney at Law (rbrown@co.clatsop.or.us)

Re: Subject: DPA 1601470

Email submissions to: cao@osbar.org Use subject line: DPA 1601470

Oregon State Bar

11/22/2021 3:41:21 PM To: Kelsey M Moreland FTA Knox

Name and Address of COMPLAINANT

Kelsey M Moreland FTA Knox

Name and Address of ATTORNEY

wmi HM««i CMMotfi »«hO(iliiiirriHor oMffH4

Subject: SMY 2101768

Dear Kelsey Moreland:

Sarra Yamin (she/her/hers)

Oregon State Bar

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL NIXIE 971 FE 1 0 0 0 1/1 0/ 2 2

Re: Joshua Marquis CAO File No. LDD 1801324

Email submissions to: cao@osbar.org Use subject line: LDD 1801324

Ronald Brown 503 325-8581

Attorney Representing Above:

Complainant Id : Name : Address :

26 - 589 - 19 Fraser, Kirk W . Clatskanie OR,

Related Cases : imrwrttf

Issue : Dishonesty & misrepresentation Source : Email

Contact Type : Third Party Recipient : Karen Graham

Dear Mr. Fraser,

http://osb 10/case/Inquiry . aspx?key=08-01321 & print=yes 6/ 18/2008

Tigard, OR 97281- 1935

Dear Mr. Morrill,

http://osb 10/case/Inquiry .aspx?key =08-01321& print=yes 6/18/2008

503- 728- 4894

I hope that this is helpful.

Tigard, OR 97281- 1935

Dear Mr. Morrill,

http://osbl 0/case/Inquiry . aspx?key=08-0132 l & print=yes 6/ 18/2008

Preliminary Report of Misconduct

Clatsop County DA Ron Brown and

Circuit Court Judge Cindee Matyas

Case 06 - 1238 State v. Kelly

Compiled by Kirk W . Fraser

Date May 20, 2008

Misconduct : Prosecutor denies cumulative argument and refuses to curb repetition .

Impression statements were not cumulative, inclined to allow them.

10 : 02 : 38 AM - 10 : 02 : 40 AM Prosecutor, Judge, Defense

10:09:14 AM - 10:10:35 AM Defense

10 : 18 : 05 AM - 10 : 27 : 30 AM Defense & Judge

10 : 18 : 05 AM - 10 : 46 : 06 AM Defense & Judge & Prosecutor & Break Time

11: 15 : 33 AM - 12 : 10 : 48 AM Jury Interviews & Break Time

1: 29 : 59 PM - 4 : 51: 24 PM Jury Instructions & Interviews & Break Time

4 : 51: 29 PM Kelly is the victim in this case.

Misconduct : opinion as fact, not alleged victim.

4 : 54 : 34 PM Crimes occurred on Cedar Street .

Misconduct : opinion as fact, not alleged crimes.

4 : 55 : 13 PM Well if grandma was gone, got sexually abused .

Misconduct : lie to jury, imagined scenario

4 : 55 : 31 PM The defendant would sexually abuse down in the basement generally

Misconduct: lie to jury, imagined scenario, and cumulative repeat

Misconduct : lie to jury, imagined scenario, and cumulative repeat

Misconduct : lie to jury, imagined scenario