2
34
5
678
9 2
3 4 5 6
7 8
9
2
2324
25
6
7
28
93
3
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4
4
4 43
BEFORETHE
COMMISSIONER
OFTHE
BUREAU
OF
LABORAND
INDUSTRIES
OF
THE
STATE
OF
OREGON
In
the
Matter
of:
OregonBureau
of
LaborandIndustries
on
behalf
of
RACHEL
CRYER
Complainant
MELISSA
KLEIN
dba
SWEETCAKES
BY
MELISSA
and
AARON
WAYNE
KLEIN individually;
as
an
Aider
and
Abettorunder
ORS659A.406
Respondents.
In
the
Matter
of:
OregonBureau
of
LaborandIndustries
onbehalf
of
LAUREL
BOWMAN
CRYER
Complainant
MELISSAKLEIN
dba
SWEETCAKES
BY
MELISSA
and
AARON
WAYNE
KLEIN individually
as
an
Aider
and
Abettorunder
S
659A.406
Respondents.
Case
No.
44-14
RESPONDENTS MOTIONTO
REOPEN
CONTESTED
CASE
RECORD
Case
No.45-14
RESPONDENTS MOTIONTO
REOPEN
CONTESTED
CASE
RECORD
Page1
RESPONDENTS
MOTIONTO
REOPEN
CONTESTED
CASE
RECORD
HER ERT
G GREY
Attorney
At
Law
4800
SW
GriffithDrive Suite32
Beaverton,
OR
97005-8716
503 641-4908
1
Pursuant
to
OAR
839-050-0410,
Respondents
herebymove
for
an
order
reopening
the
2
contestedcaserecord
to
allowadditionalevidencenecessary
to
fullyandfairlyadjudicate
the
3
case
for
good
causeshown
herein
in
that
the
BOLI
ALJ
unfairlydenied
Respondents
the
4
opportunity
to
keep
thehearing
record
openand
to
conduct
discovery
to
inquire
into
testimony
5
byBOLI
witness
AaronCryer
at
hearingthatdirectly
contradicted
prior
testimony
from
6
complainants
and
othersaboutpossiblecollusioninvolvingcomplainants,BasicRights
Oregon
7
and/or
unidentified
BOLI
personnel.
Such
a
decision
isan
abuse
of
discretion
that,
if
8uncorrected,willunfairlyprejudiceRespondentsrightsherein.
9
RGUM NT
10
ORS
183.482 7)
requires
remedial
Agency
action
if
either
thefairness
of
the
proceeding
or
the
correctness
ofthe
action
may
have
beenimpaired
bya
materialerror
in
procedure
ora
12
failure
to
follow
prescribed
procedure.
Similarly,
ORS
183.482 8) c)requiressetting
aside
or
13remandinganordernotsupportedbysubstantialevidence.
14
As
quotedbelow,BOLIwitness
Aaron
Cryer
testified
at
hearing
on
Friday,March
13,
2015
about
his
knowledgeconcerning
theinvolvement
of
BOLI
personnel
and
others,including
16
complainants,
in
discussions
about
how
the
casefitinto
an
overall
strategy
involvingmarriage
17
equality
in
Oregon.
His
testimony
notonly
contradicted
complainants
denials
alsonoted
18
below)
in
earliertestimonyabout
such
politicalconsiderations,
but
ire tly
implicated
BOLIand
19
Complainants
in
using
this
case
against
Respondents
for
a
political
agenda
rather
than
a
good
20
faith
claim
for
recovery
of
damages
to
Complainants.That
casts
notonly
the
credibility
of
21
complainants testimony
into
doubt,
but
alsoconfirmswhat
Respondents
have
longargued
inthe
22
record:
bias
haseffectivelyprecluded
Respondents
from
receivingdue
process
inthis
case
Page2-
RESPONDENTS MOTIONTO
REOPENCONTESTED
CASERECORD
H R RT
G.
GREY
AttorneyAtLaw
4800
SW
GriffithDrive Suite
320
Beaverton
OR
97005-8716
503 641-4908