Gail Lewis Your True Political Colors Are Shining Through!

I guess it is true and Gail Lewis was wrong.

I asked him to explain how he figured the city abandoned the volunteers.

This is a copy of our correspondence.

As you can see Mr. Lewis the appointed in violation of the 4^th amendment councilor, who also paid for his seat cannot prove to me that the City abandoned the volunteers as he said in his mis-information campaign to justify the recall and his unconstitutional appointment in violation of state law.

Read it for yourself.

Re: Really now a strike? December 16, 2011 12:41 PM  

From: "gail lewis" <glewis14659@yahoo.com>  

To: "Cody Steelman" <codysteelman@embarqmail.com>

Cc: Tom Cramblett; "lmasters" <lmasters@cascade-locks.or.us>; "Sto911" <Sto911@yahoo.com>; "EveZerfing" <ezerfing@cascade-locks.or.us>; "rods88609" <rods88609@mypacks.net>; "strnwheel" strnwheel@aol.com

Cody 

This will probably be the last email you receive from me.....you can say what you wish and do what you wish....doesnt matter to me.

I do not consider myself a politician and have never worried about being politically correct.  It is only out of respect for the rest of the city council that I do not call you an idiot

--- On Thu, 12/15/11, Cody Steelman <codysteelman@embarqmail.com> wrote:

From: Cody Steelman <codysteelman@embarqmail.com>

Subject: Re: Really now a strike?

To: "gail lewis" <glewis14659@yahoo.com>

Cc: "Cramblett, Tom" <tcramblett@cascade-locks.or.us>, "lmasters" <lmasters@cascade-locks.or.us>, "Sto911" <Sto911@yahoo.com>, "Zerfing, Eve" <ezerfing@cascade-locks.or.us>, "rods88609" <rods88609@mypacks.net>, "strnwheel" <strnwheel@aol.com>

Date: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 12:50 PM

Council as a whole did not make that statement you did.

Now I want you to prove it.

The problem is you can't so you want to hide behind the skirts of the council.

But since you want to involve council as a whole in this so be it.

But you will learn they did not say it.

And I will do one better.

I will make a page for this subject on the blog this weekend.

Now whose skirt are you going to hide behind?

You said and created this problem not council, now prove it yourself.

Cody

From: "gail lewis" <glewis14659@yahoo.com>

To: "Cody Steelman" <codysteelman@embarqmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 12:13:35 PM

Subject: Re: Really now a strike?

Cody, I am not going to continue an email stream with you.....if you have issues....bring them to council

--- On Thu, 12/15/11, Cody Steelman <codysteelman@embarqmail.com> wrote:

From: Cody Steelman <codysteelman@embarqmail.com>

Subject: Re: Really now a strike?

To: "gail lewis" <glewis14659@yahoo.com>

Date: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 12:11 PM

Gail

I think you need to go back and watch the video of the November 14th meeting and listen to yourself during the”Approval of temporary Intergovernmental Agreement for Fire Services from the City of Hood River.”

Now taking what you said how can you explain taking from the general fund and taking from beautification if the previous budget Committee did something wrong. After all you could not find any money and learned that even property taxes were spent in and by that very department already.

As far as the flowers is that the best you can do? The previous Council and budget had just exposed over a half a million dollars in mismanagement from the EMS department managers and you want to bring up flowers with me. Why should beautification pay for the screw-up of the managers of the EMS department?

Now you said “My statement that the City abandoned the volunteers was based upon the Fire fund budget being reduced so severely, while other accounts (such as flower maintenance) were funded.”

That is a blanket statement answer to my question. Now prove it using budget and fund use laws. Because first off if you care to look that fund was budgeted with the exact same amount that was budgeted the year before and the year before that. Or is it that you do not understand that the property taxes are where that department is funded? So prove to me that the previous budget changed that percentage to fund that department.

The only thing that budget and council did was comply with the law!!!

All you are telling me here is that if management makes mistakes then everyone else in the city should pay. Is that about right?

Cody

From: "gail lewis" <glewis14659@yahoo.com>

To: "Cody Steelman" <codysteelman@embarqmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 8:36:07 AM

Subject: Re: Fwd: Really now a strike?

Cody,

My statement that the City abandoned the volunteers was based upon the Fire fund budget being reduced so severely, while other accounts (such as flower maintenance) were funded.

Even Tom made comments agreeing with me that the City abandoned them.

From: Cody Steelman <codysteelman@embarqmail.com>

Subject: Fwd: Really now a strike?

To: "GLewis14659" GLewis14659@yahoo.com

Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2011, 1:51 PM

Gail

 How dare you even imply that the previous council abandoned the volunteer fire fighters?

If you want the truths start with the Hood River News before the illegal strike. There you will read the crime of blackmail and coercion against not only the council the voters had the crime of fraud committed on them to steal the seat you now hold, but the volunteers blackmailed every citizen in that article as we did not vote anyone other than council to hold powers they stole in our City Charter.

So my question to you would be who granted these volunteers that abandoned the city the power to decide anything.

Which leads me to my question to you?

I want you to explain to me how anyone abandoned the volunteers or how the previous council is responsible for anything?

I suggest you know my history on this by reading an email I am forwarding you.

Then explain to me how you are going to be able to back up your statement, because as I see it you are out of line and need to be called on for your misinformation campaign you are attempting here.

The volunteers abandoned the city criminally and charges have been filed against them with the State Police (Lt. Patrick Ashmore), which turned it over to the Department of Justice (Mike Lowery) and now it is going to the governor.

Justice will be ours in the end.

Cody

From: "Cody Steelman" <codysteelman@embarqmail.com>

To: firefighterwebb@yahoo.com

Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 9:24:35 PM

Subject: Really now a strike?

Megan Webb

In reading the paper you are the person speaking for the volunteers so let me address you directly with my concerns.

I tracked your email down to address you as a citizen to speaker for the volunteers.

The way I see it you and the volunteers have yourselves between a rock and a hard place here.

Let me explain what I have found and will verify with my legal council Tuesday, if this is not resolved by the end of Monday night’s meeting with the City Council.

The common law rule regarding the employer-employee relationship allows the termination of the relationship by either party, without notice and without cause.

Oregon courts have long followed this general rule of "at-will" employment. This means that generally, in the absence of a contract or statute to the contrary, Oregon employers may discharge an employee at any time and for any reason, or for no reason at all. Simpson v. Western Graphics, 293 Or 96, 99, 643 P2d 1276 (1982); Nees v. Hocks, 272 Or 210, 216, 536 P2d 512 (1975).

In our city the power to hire and fire is held by the City Council.

So unless there is a provision in Jeff’s contract specifically stating the terms under which he can and cannot be let go. Then that would be between Jeff and the Council.

But the volunteers would have no say in this matter, in any way, shape or form.

All you volunteers are achieving, fighting this losing battle is risking your personal livelihoods and placing it at risk of a suit of law against each and every one of you.

The game you are playing is called coercion under the law.

Let me explain.

In reading the paper it is quoted that; “Volunteers had warned the city council in June that the firefighters would not respond to calls if Pricher was let go.”

Well if the city has the legal right to hire and fire at will under the law, this statement committed the crime of black mail and other crimes under the law as I read them.

First off Pricher was not let go by the city. Pricher resigned.

And even if Pricher was let go Oregon State Law says the City has the right to hire and fire at will.

So that statement made in the paper, is in direct confliction with Oregon State Law concerning the rights of employers to hire and fire at will.

And this big stink you volunteers are making is in direct violation of the laws as employees have no legal right to tell an employer who he has to keep employed.

Again this gave new meaning to more criminal actions being committed as I read in the laws.

So when Pricher resigned the volunteers as reflected in the paper did as they said they would do if the chief was let go and did not respond to calls.

This action took that blackmail to a whole new criminal level.

This constituted a sit down strike under the law.

Well I have bad news for the volunteers here again.

Oregon Law for municipal governments forbids public workers to strike unless a provision specifically adhered to is found in the articles of incorporation or the municipal charter.

You see Oregon follows the Wagner Act which sets the policy of promoting collective bargaining and providing a statutory right to strike in the private sector only.

I will quote the intent of the act concerning governmental employees as written by Franklin Roosevelt to the president, National Federation of Federal Employees.

“Militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees…. A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking towards the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Now since the 70’s there have been exceptions to the rule here but very limited to government employees also a member of a union.

This is allowed because a safety net in the by-laws is required by law being a nonbinding fact-finding precondition to a lawful strike. Where pre-strike fact-finding is required, the parties must first present their positions regarding unresolved issues to a neutral fact finder who holds a hearing and makes recommendations for final settlement.

Now at this point the City could file an injunction with the courts or request the governor to intervene to order the volunteers back to work.

The basis for that injunction would be a violation of the Wagner Act as well as the strike is a clear and present danger to the public health, safety and welfare.

But even so I see nowhere in Oregon law where Emergency Services employees are allowed any exemption to strike and rightfully so.

Nor do I see in any public record of this city council where a public hearing was held.

Now you are representing an association.

So I would hope that this association you are representing has fulfilled the legal requirements of state law to be a lawfully recognized association.

So at this point I would request disclosure of your State Association License along with a copy of the by-laws for your association.

In these by-laws I expect provisions and terms to strike to be clearly stated and defined.

I would like to see the agreement with the city to accept these strike terms.

I wish to see your policy for pre-strike negotiations.

I wish to see who the neutral mediator was that was assigned to make a recommendation and this persons contact information.

I wish to be disclosed the minutes to these pre-negotiations.

I request disclosure of the recommendations made by the neutral mediator which led to this strike.

I would also request disclosure of the officers of the association and the dates and terms in which they became officers of this Association.

I request the names and contact information for all volunteers of the Cascade Locks Emergency Services Fire and Rescue Department.

I make this request under the statues and provisions of law concerning public record requests and the Freedom of Information Act.

Now if you are not a legally recognized Association under the law and you are representing it as that, this could be a crime.

ORS 162.355 Simulating legal process. (1) A person commits the crime of simulating legal process if, with the intent to harass, injure or defraud another person, the person knowingly issues or delivers to another person any document that in form and substance falsely simulates civil or criminal process.

(2) As used in this section:

(a) “Civil or criminal process” means a document or order, including, but not limited to, a summons, lien, complaint, warrant, injunction, writ, notice, pleading or subpoena, that is issued by a court or that is filed or recorded for the purpose of:

(A) Exercising jurisdiction;

(B) Representing a claim against a person or property;

(C) Directing a person to appear before a court or tribunal; or

(D) Directing a person to perform or refrain from performing a specified act.

(b) “Person” has the meaning given that term in ORS 161.015, except that in relation to a defendant, “person” means a human being, a public or private corporation, an unincorporated association or a partnership.

(3) Simulating legal process is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §210; 1997 c.395 §1; 2005 c.2 §1]

ORS 162.365 Criminal impersonation. (1) A person commits the crime of criminal impersonation if with intent to obtain a benefit, to injure or defraud another or to facilitate an unlawful activity, the person does an act in the assumed character of:

(a) A public servant; or

(b) An active member or veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States.

(2) It is no defense to a prosecution for criminal impersonation that:

(a) The office, position or title that the person pretended to hold did not in fact exist; or

(b) The unit of government that the person pretended to represent did not in fact exist.

(3)(a) Criminal impersonation is a Class A misdemeanor.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, criminal impersonation is a Class C felony if the public servant impersonated is a peace officer, judge or justice of the peace. [1971 c.743 §211; 1993 c.243 §1; 1997 c.395 §2; 2003 c.577 §12; 2007 c.510 §1]

ORS 165.102 Obtaining execution of documents by deception.(1) A person commits the crime of obtaining execution of documents by deception if, with intent to defraud or injure another or to acquire a substantial benefit, the person obtains by means of fraud, deceit or subterfuge the execution of a written instrument affecting or purporting to affect the pecuniary interest of any person.

(2) Obtaining execution of documents by deception is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §168]

Now at this time the city along with each and every citizen in this town could file civil and criminal charges against this so called association and every volunteer.

Now civilly I would just turn the matter over to my attorney and let her deal with it.

But at this time I am prepared to file criminal charges against this Association and each and every volunteer personally on crimes I feel have occurred against myself and every tax payer in Cascade Locks, Oregon.

I will let you read them for yourself.

ORS 162.015 Bribe giving. (1) A person commits the crime of bribe giving if the person offers, confers or agrees to confer any pecuniary benefit upon a public servant with the intent to influence the public servant’s vote, opinion, judgment, action, decision or exercise of discretion in an official capacity.

(2) Bribe giving is a Class B felony. [1971 c.743 §179]

ORS 162.235 Obstructing governmental or judicial administration. (1) A person commits the crime of obstructing governmental or judicial administration if the person intentionally obstructs, impairs or hinders the administration of law or other governmental or judicial function by means of intimidation, force, physical or economic interference or obstacle.

(2) This section shall not apply to the obstruction of unlawful governmental or judicial action or interference with the making of an arrest.

(3) Obstructing governmental or judicial administration is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §198; 1981 c.902 §1]

ORS 162.257 Interfering with a firefighter or emergency medical technician. (1) A person commits the crime of interfering with a firefighter or emergency medical technician if the person, knowing that another person is a firefighter or emergency medical technician, intentionally acts in a manner that prevents, or attempts to prevent, a firefighter or emergency medical technician from performing the lawful duties of the firefighter or emergency medical technician.

(2) Interfering with a firefighter or emergency medical technician is a Class A misdemeanor.

(3) As used in this section, “emergency medical technician” has the meaning given that term in ORS 682.025. [2003 c.529 §2]

ORS 162.415 Official misconduct in the first degree. (1) A public servant commits the crime of official misconduct in the first degree if with intent to obtain a benefit or to harm another:

(a) The public servant knowingly fails to perform a duty imposed upon the public servant by law or one clearly inherent in the nature of office; or

(b) The public servant knowingly performs an act constituting an unauthorized exercise in official duties. (2) Official misconduct in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §215]

ORS 163.190 Menacing. (1) A person commits the crime of menacing if by word or conduct the person intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.

(2) Menacing is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §95]

ORS 163.200 Criminal mistreatment in the second degree. (1) A person commits the crime of criminal mistreatment in the second degree if, with criminal negligence and:

(a) In violation of a legal duty to provide care for another person, the person withholds necessary and adequate food, physical care or medical attention from that person; or

(b) Having assumed the permanent or temporary care, custody or responsibility for the supervision of another person, the person withholds necessary and adequate food, physical care or medical attention from that person.

(2) Criminal mistreatment in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor.

(3) As used in this section, “legal duty” includes but is not limited to a duty created by familial relationship, court order, contractual agreement or statutory or case law. [1973 c.627 §2; 1993 c.364 §1]

ORS 163.275 Coercion. (1) A person commits the crime of coercion when the person compels or induces another person to engage in conduct from which the other person has a legal right to abstain, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which the other person has a legal right to engage, by means of instilling in the other person a fear that, if the other person refrains from the conduct compelled or induced or engages in conduct contrary to the compulsion or inducement, the actor or another will:

(a) Unlawfully cause physical injury to some person;

(b) Unlawfully cause damage to property;

(c) Engage in conduct constituting a crime;

(d) Falsely accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against the person; (e) Cause or continue a strike, boycott or other collective action injurious to some person’s business, except that such a threat is not deemed coercive when the act or omission compelled is for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act;

(f) Testify falsely or provide false information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another’s legal claim or defense; or

(g) Unlawfully use or abuse the person’s position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely.

(2) Coercion is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §102; 1983 c.546 §4; 1985 c.338 §1; 2007 c.71 §45]

Now at this time each and every volunteer can be charged with criminal negligence for their actions as well.

If this continues on and someone is harmed, dies or loses property because of the volunteer’s actions or this assosiation let me put it this way.

If someone dies then each and every volunteer could be sentenced to death as I understand it.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

This is a very dangerous game you are playing here.

I hope you know what you are doing and have your ducks in order because if this thing is not resolved by Monday night and the volunteers back on the job or resigned and all city equipment turned in the by Monday night, so that we as a city know what we have to work with, I am going to find out if I am correct and proceed with a criminal action against every volunteer Tuesday morning.

If resignations occur because this council refuses to abide by your demands to keep our Chief, then I will proceed with an action against all volunteers respectfully as I remind you this council has the legal right to hire and fire at will.

The only exception I as a citizen will accept is a factually verifiable reason pertaining to the volunteers only and in no way connected to the position of a specific employee being a specific chief.

If you are saying safety as you did in the paper I know for a fact that this chief did not respond on all calls and for you to attempt to make that claim is illogical in relation to the call logs.

I want verifiable proof and nothing less and you have until Monday night to do so.

I hope I have made myself more than clear enough to you as the speaker to the volunteers through this association you claim.

Which I still demand disclosure, of all documentation I requested, concerning this so called Association.

As we are going to find out here and now if this is a legal association under the law.

I am going to put it in laymen’s terms for you now.

This is a bull shit game you are playing here with people’s lives and property and I will not stand for it in any way, shape or form.

I hope I have made myself perfectly crystal clear in this matter.

Thank you for your time.

Michael “Cody” Steelman

_____________________________________________________________________________________

(For the record they did come back within hours of this but then started submitting resignations or temporary leaves of absences until the election. Then the volunteers used this strike as a way to fraud the voters by the use of the volunteers blackmailing the voters. Recall or no fire department. This strike was nothing more than for political purposes and each and every volunteer that went on strike need to be jailed for criminal negligence)

So my question has and is. Are these the people we want to depend on to save our property or our lives? Those that would walk out on the citizens for political purposes as a means to fraud the voters?

Think about it would you because that is exactly what happened and if you read the record it proves itself as the unde3niable truth.

That is why Gail Lewis wants to hid behind skirts when confronted by me about his statement.

He knows he is as guilty as the rest of these frauds who did this to our city.

But he wants to continue on thinking the general public is stupid and if he says that the previous council did this that in time the people will believe it.

Sorry Gail it is not that easy.

No one abandoned the volunteers.

The volunteers abandoned us in violation of many laws and for political purposes.

Those who took part in this fraud need to be jailed and in no way can be allowed to serve in our or any city again.

Cody