IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Adverse Party,
v.
GARY HAUGEN,
Defendant-Relator.
Marion County Circuit
Court No. 04C46224
Appellate Court No. '
Supreme Court No. S059519
MANDAMUS PROCEEDING
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
The Oregon Capital Resource Center (OCRC) filed a petition for writ of
mandamus, purportedly on behalf of Gary Haugen. OCRC does not represent
Mr. Haugen and concedes that "Mr. Haugen has not requested [OCRC] to file
this petition." (Pet. 1). Nevertheless, OCRC seeks a peremptory or alternative
writ of mandamus directing the circuit court, Honorable Joseph Guimond, to
vacate a "death warrant" issued against Mr. Haugen and to "conduct a hearing
to determine whether Mr. Haugen is competent to be executed." (Pet 4). This
court should deny the petition because OCRC lacks standing to pursue any
claims on Mr. Haugen's behalf.
A. Introduction and Background
This mandamus proceeding relates to the scheduled execution of Gary
Haugen. On May 18, 2011, Marion County Circuit Court Judge Joseph
Page 1 - MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
JCR:elk\2859920
Department of Justice
I 162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
(503) 378-4402
Guimond held a hearing, found Mr. Haugen competent to be executed, and
issued a "death warrant." (Tr 34; Death Warrant, attached to mandamus
petition). In this mandamus proceeding, aCRC claims that Judge Guimond has
a duty to vacate the death warrant and hold a new competency hearing.
Leading up to the death warrant hearing, Mr. Haugen was represented by
his attorneys Andy Simrin and W. Keith Goody, neither of whom is affiliated
with OCRC. Mr. Simrin and Mr. Goody had moved the court to find Mr.
Haugen incompetent Of, in the alternative, to hold a competency hearing.
(Motion to Find Defendant Incompetent, attached to mandamus petition). But,
at the death warrant hearing, Mr. Haugen requested to proceed without counsel
and to withdraw the motion that his attorneys had filed on his behalf. (Tr 3-4,
13,15; Art 1).1 After a colloquy, the court determined that Mr. Haugen's
waiver was "competent, knowing, and voluntary" and, thus, granted his request.
(Tr 13 (reciting standard from ORS 137.463(3)(a); Art 2-4). The court
Mr. Haugen explained that his attorneys had filed the motion without
his consent. (Tr 16).
Page 2 - MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
JCR:elk\2859920
Department of Justice
J162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
(503) 378-4402
ordered that Mr. Simrin and Mr. Goody would continue to serve as Mr.
Haugen's legal advisors. (Tr 13).
The court then questioned Mr. Haugen and, ultimately, determined that
he is competent to be executed. (Tr 34). The court scheduled the execution to
take place August 16,2011. (Tr 36; Death Warrant, attached to mandamus
petition).
On June 13,2011, OCRC-an independent entity unrelated to the
underlying proceedings-filed the present petition for writ of mandamus. In its
petition, OCRC argues that Judge Guimond erred by allowing Mr. Haugen to
discharge his attorneys. (Pet 5-7). As explained below, OCRC lacks authority
to present that claim on Mr. Haugen's behalf.
B. This court should deny OCRC's petition because OCRC lacks
standing to pursue its claims and lacks authority to pursue any claims on
Mr. Haugen's behalf.
OCRC has no direct interest in Mr. Haugen's case. It does not represent
Mr. Haugen in this or any other litigation, and, in fact, it has filed the present
petition without Mr. Haugen's consent. Consequently, aCRC lacks standing
and authority to raise any claims related to Mr. Haugen and this court should
deny the petition.
Page 3 - MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
JCR:elk\2859920
Department of Justice
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
(503) 378-4402
"Standing" is "the right to obtain an adjudication." Eckles v. State, 306
Or 380,383, 760 P2d 846 (1988). A person without standing has "no right to
have a tribunal decide a claim under the law defming the requested relief,
regardless whether another plaintiff has any such right." Id. at 383.
Whether a particular person has standing to bring a particular claim
"depends upon the type of relief sought and commonly is governed by a
specific statutory standard." Eckles, 306 Or at 384. Generally, "for [a] party to
have standing, [the] court's decision must have some practical effect on [the]
partyls rights." Strunk v. PERB, 338 Or 145, 153, 108 P3d 1058 (2005) (citing
Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or 402, 848 P2d 1194 (1993)). But the legislature may
authorize suits brought by others as well. Kellas v. Dept. ofCorrections, 341
Or 471, 484, 145 P3d 139 (2006) ("[T]he legislature can recognize the right of
any citizen to initiate a judicial action to enforce matters of public interest.").
Thus, to determine whether a person has standing, this court looks to the
relevant statutory scheme to determine the legislature's intent. Eckles, 306 Or
at 384; Local No. 290 v. Dept. of Environ. Quality, 323 Or 559,566,919 P2d
1168 (1996) (standing is conferred by the legislature and controlled by the type
of relief sought).
Page 4 - MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
JCR:elk\2859920
Department of Justice
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
(503) 378-4402
aCRC has not alleged standing in its own right. And aCRC, of course,
does not represent Mr. Haugen. Consequently, it does not have any authority to
seek mandamus as his agent. See Vaughn v. First Transit, Inc" 346 ar 128,
135,206 P3d 181 (2009) (agency relationship is one "that results from the
manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on
behalf and subject to his control, and consent by the other so to act. '" (emphasis
and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also aRS 9.310-340 (defining
attorney-client relationships).2
If aCRC has authority to seek relief on Mr. Haugen's behalf, it can be
only because the legislature has authorized some form of "third-party" standing
in mandamus proceedings. But the relevant statutes do not contemplate third-
party standing in mandamus proceedings. Therefore, aCRC lacks standing to
pursue its claims, and this com1 should dismiss this case.
The legislature has authorized third-party standing in numerous contexts.
For example, ORS 183.400 allows "any person" to challenge the "validity of
any [administrative] rule" in the Court of Appeals. See generally Kellas v.
2 In fact, Mr. Haugen is adamant that he does not want aCRC to file
the present mandamus petition on his behalf. (Att 5).
Page 5 - MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
JCR:elk\2859920
Department of Justice
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
(503) 3784402
3
Dept. a/Corrections, 341 Or 471,484,145 P3d 139 (2006) (discussing
standing requirements under ORS 183.400). The Post-Conviction Hearing Act
authorizes "one person on behalf of another person who has been convicted of
aggravated murder and sentenced to death" to seek post-conviction relief in
certain limited circumstances. ORS 138.510(2).3 Other statutes have
authorized standing by "interested" third parties. See, e.g., McIntire v. Forbes,
322 Or 426,431,909 P2d 846 (1996) (provision providing that "any interested
person" could challenge constitutionality of Act allowed third-party challenge).
Unlike those statutes, however, the relevant mandamus statutes do not
contemplate anyone other than the relator himself seeking mandamus relief.
The "relator" in a mandamus proceeding is "the beneficially interested party on
whose relation a mandamus proceeding is brought." ORS 34.105(4). To
initiate a mandamus proceeding, "the relator shall file a petition for a writ of
mandamus with the clerk of the court or court administrator." ORS 34.130(1)
SpecificallY,ORS 138.510(2) allows a third-party to seek post-
conviction relief on behalf of a capital offender if the third-party "has a
significant relationship" with a capital offender and shows that the offender is
"unable to file a petition" himself.
Page 6 - MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
JCR:elk\2859920
Department of Justice
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
(503) 378-4402
(emphasis added). Similarly, "the relator shall serve a copy of the petition on
the defendant" and on other relevant parties. ORS 34.130(2) (emphasis added).
The "relator" in this case-the "beneficially interested party"-is Mr.
Haugen. And nothing in ORS chapter 34 contemplates anyone other than Mr.
Haugen himself (or his counsel) seeking mandamus relief on his behalf. Thus,
the legislature has not authorized third-party standing in this case. Had the
legislature intended to do so, it easily could have.
Federal courts recognize a form of third-party standing in habeas corpus
cases known as "next friend" standing. A "friend" of an inmate may bring a
habeas corpus action on the inmate's behalf if the person can establish "(1) that
the petitioner is unable to litigate his own cause due to mental incapacity, lack
of access to court, or other similar disability; and (2) [that] the next friend has
some significant relationship with, and is truly dedicated to the best interests of,
the petitioner." Massie ex reI. Kroll v. Woodford, 244 F3d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir
2001); see generally Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 US 149, 163-64, 110 SCt 1717,
109 LEd2d 135 (1990) (explaining "next friend" doctrine).
As explained above, the legislature has authorized similar third-party
standing in capital post-conviction cases. In fact, the Post-Conviction Hearing
Page 7 - MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
JCR:elk\2859920
Department of Justice
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
(503) 378-4402
4
Act appears to utilize an identical standard. See aRS 138.510(2). But no
statute authorizes "next friend" standing in mandamus proceedings. And, in
any event, even if "next friend" standing were available in mandamus
proceedings, aCRC would not be entitled to seek relief on Mr. Haugen's
behalf. aCRC has not established any relationship--Iet alone a "significant
relationship"-with Mr. Haugen that would authorize its involvement here.
And despite aCRC's protestation to the contrary, the record demonstrates that
Mr. Haugen was and is fully capable of litigating on his own behalf.
In short, aCRC lacks authority to seek mandamus on Mr. Haugen's
behalf. Therefore, this court should deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
4
Because aCRC does not have standing, the state does not respond
to the merits of its claims. However, it suffices to say that on the record before
the circuit court, Mr. Haugen's competency to waive counsel and proceed with
the hearing is clear. Judge Guimond did not err in determining that Mr. Haugen
was capable of making that decision on his own. Further, to the extent that
aCRC relies on newly submitted evidence-an affidavit signed by Dr. Muriel
Lezak-its reliance is misplaced. Any decision concerning Mr. Haugen's
competency to waive counsel should be made on the record developed before
the circuit court. Thus, to the extent that the Lezak affidavit is even relevant to
the question of Mr. Haugen's competence to waive counsel, it would be
improper to consider it in this proceeding.
Page 8 - MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
JCR:elk\2859920
Department of Justice
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
(503) 378-4402
CONCLUSION
Because OCRC lacks standing to seek mandamus on relator's behalf, this
court should deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN R. KROGER #077207
Attorney General
MARY H. WILLIAMS #911241
Solicitor General
/s/ Jeremy C. Rice :5Z---.
JEREMY C. RICE #055416
Assistant Attorney General
Jeremy.C.Rice@doj.state.or.us
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Adverse Party
State of Oregon
Page 9 - MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
JCR:elk\2859920
Department of Justice
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
(503) 378-4402
Art - 1
I
.,I'D i,'n C,12(J.-('( r(OUiT A l'1 1/)! }\11'I\).)v ILl., ,
?'t{{h
fr
/ /(..fj/lf.l
JC<.b6& bill l'VlfJf/lej f!11,j) /)011 r11.)1/f2.;
T (] [('lll5r f'iJ1 /1f2t2J111' Jq/1;1/), ('(7WI5t,!
F/IOWI CCI/I 0(2, 1 ITt:IZ 01/1 #-1(bcliP1/f
f) G:f'8'l '5is cIYUV(.5t.2- DIDlOS /1VI Ilc5,lJi.cT 7he: ("c;i.-(lZ!S
f\ll1( J3m NCJIL JJO 1'hE.7l f2E";fJt::c..TI'Nlj LUI.5k=5
\1.e,,9Y-1I2cl ih-i ('b'l'5!:':, L> G: f""Zc- no, /11 /}1hc:/
APPCJ'1L v+vl D (, DU/11-51.=:;/ /s do;t
N
! t.l/t;f{'/Z1f-
11
l' 7f>
[14/<'EO i9lt.!pf WI YIZ/1 h' f(..? tlv/c<sc: Ir1 II/i')"In',;1'1
Df= Lk':l, C j-1 viI\ OJ2&e/
Ol
/ 57}mt /c'
Ij LLY\ 56: Go noT 11/ lo,u AVlL{ vl'\.ctelt:: pc,)., i l iOl/!
(V\ Clii \J Vl\b 0 JL-l Tf4'f:lt' '5 J b tNt V\5tL ,
T LUv-lVs [I-,\ltCQ.V\f':-0t ,.. CL I u,l !J/211!;LGJCZb iF
':'x' II Cl4fZ hc: /(6'1<' }t1(L, ji-1 tJb'1 y( C/T11/1 iI!:.."\!'!:de) Ihl ')
<.:\C'C ll\'V\ l:,Yl\' - b L1 0'\1'117i( {ZeL;;;;'! \/11'1 1i r)hl2OiAi;/, /1CN! _
LtVj VtJrn 0'1f-1l Wl tv-'1vl:5, T f-Il.Sf) M"1Ub 17 j&6;UESr
J2 t:\ Hrlvii 1::::'EClAT, DVl l;,vlTb) ii' Vtvl DLut"lf.ttb LI)C:(1lOT
To nibil pDiVl1 I t1fIO r't- 0(lJ."t;5Ticl/Y/2E.Lt;UC5T PJJ/NPdllikl
!\1")c17 j'eur (]DCIZ 1D1(s IV[ it{ i VI!;: 7() It)5- dc'J1011.r1 J1
(Lt TQc _0117': :!"MJ1}!!:-7!LfS>'.
N t? / &/lYj..., 7T67l /ZtULit57 /I1 ThE 1!1cl:12l?:5/ Lit- .:J LiSI, C;
- - - "-" .--- " '),' , <5 J{/\ {f)'26( L1 '-
i':.'1l Et. I f/l J )b1
1
1d"l'i CFf</I1
C
! ,;J.dJI ,
C:'H10 L{' HtflUl1e-if \
Att - 2
THE STATE OF OREGON
JOSEPH G, GUIMOND
CIRCUJT COURT JUDGE
Dated a{ Salem, Oregon, Ihls '20 day ofMay, 201 I.
Is! Joseph C. Guimond
1:;(
A/4r<'Il I::D
Ot,lq)(;,
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON :t.l
q
"C}/,'1 . 7
FOR. THE COUNTY OF MARION -'/llt,(;,
) No. 04C46224
)
) ORDER DISCHARGfNG COUNSEL, ANDY SIMRIN
) AND KEITH GOODY
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
Defendant,
YS,
GARY HAUGEN,
THIS MA1TER .;:oming on before lhe Court on 05118/11; the defend!1nt appearing personally and
with his attorneys, Andy Simrin and Keith Goody, llnd the State ofOregoll appearing by DONALD D.
ABAR and DOUGLASC. ('IANSON, Deputy District Attorneys fOl' Marion CO\1lity; and arguments having
been presented to the Court by respective and the defendi\t1t, and the Court being fully advised in
the premises; NOW, THERETiORB,
THE COURT FrNDS:
I. Thallhe defcndant, Gary Haugen, requests to proceed pro se in this ll1lltter; and
2. After the CoM'S inquiry of tile defendant 011 the record, that the defendant. Gal)'
Hn\lgen, competently, knowingly llnd voluntarily waives the right to counsel in this
matter; NOW, THEREFORE,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
I. Thill defensc cmJn.sel, An'dy Simrin -and Keith Goody, lire hereby discharged liS cO\1I1selln
thIs matter; and
2. Thatthe Court lionlill'\'CS appointment of counsell1s advisor only for tho pmposes of the
death W!\lT!1JlI headng; and
3. Tlmt the defendant, Gary Haugen, pl'Oceeds pro se in the death warrant hearing, PUI'S\1allt
to ORS 137.463.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5'

&1!i
d
26
lD j ';0
;;g
27

f-' fX a;
28
8 v.

u
29
'Il
<5
30
Page J - ORDER DISCHARGING COUNSEL, ANDY SIMRfN AND KEITH GOODY
05/19/1 I COPTES;
Att-3
JOSEPH C, GUIMOND
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
THIS MATIER coming on before HIe Conrt on 05118/11: the defendant appearing personally llnd
with his fonner attomcys (now advisors), Andy Simrin and Keith Goody, and the Statlj of Oregon
appearing by DONALD D, ABARllnd DOUGLAS C. HANSON, Deputy Dlstl'ict Altomeys for Marion
COHnty; and lIrgilments having been presented to the Court by respecHve cDunsel .md the defendant, lind the
Court being fully advised in the premises; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COURT FINDS lhnlthe defendant, Omy Haugen, procceds 1)1'0 so, with Andy Simrin and
Keith Goody as advisors only; tharthe defendant, Gury Haugen, requests this Court witlHlrnw the
prcviously silb'mitted defonse Motion to Find Defendliritlncompetent 10 Execute, 01' in (he Altemative 10
Continuc mid to Schedllle Evidential)' Hearing, which motion was tiled by Ami>, Sirnrln and Keith G()ody
wllhQut defendant's knowledge, consent or now, therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the defense Motion 10 rind Defendnnt
Incompelent to Execute, 01' in the Altel'flative to Continue and to Schechlle Evidentiary Hearing is hereby
withdrawn by the defendant. Gary HlIugen.
Dated at Salem, Oregon, this -Z(LdllY of May, 2011.
lsi C. Gilimond
THE STATE OF OREGON
ORDER WlTHDRAWlNG DEFENDANT'S MOTION
TO FIND DEFENDANT INCOMPETENT TO
EXECUTE, ORIN THE ALTBRNA1'1 VBTO
CONTINUE AND TO SCHEDULE EVIDENTlAR.Y
HEARING
0[1>
. M4Y2
'<:1.tI OI) () <0;
IN TI-lECIRCUITCOURTOF THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF MARlON
a
) No.04C46224 v,
)
)
)
)
)
) Defelidtmt.
Plaintiff,

GARY HAUGEN,
_NTERED
MAY 10 .' ,
rion Count'! (wcult COUll
1
2
3'
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS'
19
20
21
22
23

24
,:Sh :1:
25
@
"
P:
:;;",ijC
26

j:!
27 :;! 8 cr.
lZ-

28

Q
29
30
Pagel - ORDER WITHDRAWING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONTO FIND DEFENDANT TNCOMPETENT
TO EXECUTE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVETO CONTINUE AND TO SCHEDULE EVIDENTIARY
HEARING .
05/19/11 COPlES: I=pfu: I"'defendl\nt
Att-4
To 'I1rE: &f210Vi
DnS\J\V\{; /3, d-Di I f!-170PI1t:--y !5, sltrs
-S IA\J '{Y\\\It) 1) A MJfI-v1 Di'iW;; 1t15 /J7ll ()L-frJIVli1
t
PLt:l5: 't\:s\vt15s \'VI 12 , {;Il ;SI L1VI f/IAYh
DV\ OV\ WIlIY{.vGL)j, h-b."2J10(
yY\ 0iLlTl 35 \'\'fffn141/iI;-
Received

I Safem( Oregon Attorney Oeneru _
-....,.-.. ....- .
/
,
Att - 5
AfFi cJovv/ t 0 F
m
I' ()..L. ;:::-Z-_1.!/ /
. elk. J Ef -. _f"..- 17n Pll.D,
en P9
(I
Fut/eli 0/
1
''/)7
; CLS
1/
CO/f)I)] OJ}
.,.
(.':1
II IfhDU(f/)
.'

1'/ i) $;;'C
.. , .. ..< r '.. , r " >f' f
.,
0piJ1E.S
"I L'JAi i' D/lA-I
(I. . "I'" It'"
:. [I t /) , <. 1.1 /.kI1/J,.
Jl;' '1' '" l" ! \. J '('"'r J' J' f flO" l i
r
!. r", .... n (-
/./ r.... t- :. /'! ../.
C .. l./e..... ,l<,. .
/' ,/'01)/
..t.'!.'} .."., (/i... .... /'.,.rl:...,.,...!.... ..."'1 ..."1 ') ,>:t-(". . ,'1"" i', :\.-- r.. ; J' r .. _ -.,-.1.. j"'P!<: ;,,' .. (,', .)/1...;;,...... . :l 1' ,.,l
" I' w.' " ,11 '" (., ..'.. " , .. ', '. I \J" I' .. ' ",' .,.,' ."
f . ,


)
Att-6
Wf)!)ffl)1
()

fe
it;..'.,.) .)
... l'J'oH'
/ , ,;;,... I "
It
'" .' I
j. ' .. i ! /""{'
f:_" '(.1'
,po
.
J
itT fJO
I"
l;J I),) ff}6YC'
/' ,/
didl1 ?I ulld(!2Jf)'1/Jc/ ,{,J/')f <.'Jilt:!
ID r/)T't;R (J/t;iA..) a/Je! c:'{)i4!(I/jl-!lt
{lfE /'111
j 0 X
/f1l041c.,y Lvltj
t-ll)c
l"f}V'" J "".
.........I? ..ff- '1",' '\.r!
Att-7
111c--" I' {)R; (FUIC, /1/lc(
( himQct;::/ nL:;- 1112:.7:" ifI)
L
I
LL:;" ; /) ft:-il Ut' 2"C( O')I}cl 150;).1(.1.4T".
(i Z-IN'- - D I)
e(j H6'" C77/J/}Vt /LIOLJ 0CU/ /1} tj0(X/
fMl her !Y:://ev I ,IfI't-1 //J fe-/)l-
/) - f fJlll- -:f----: dOilY LI/le!et5/;+/lc! fA:.;, jJIO-
C.(lOO He WOtt lei /)1.;; t.Jct' IL.Y::Y' mG
v
w! /J/', hll1"c/ ,/11tf:,... J
,TOh Inc:O/l'!jJI?it;Y}ft /}Jtj/MII
J
//1 e'7(', (Ft /-z. (3
,.
i
r,
I
;
r.l)rli,c1
r
0
,/)
. .
,," f $ f '/""'/1 ,- ..... } Ll
t;" v t Cll:;.': {., L": It-JrU
>. ""tJ ,r ;; ;_. f
II I 1'10{') (IL.,t..:...:, G'
Att- 8
f- 1r1i1,1


l/fLI
. t
J
/\/l //l....f:.
...,1, I f I'
i t
rflre-J!lofc!
iYllfJ if/1V4!lJ
CtJrr)jJ6Clj
r.!O(;J
Att-9
s vv\OUE-'TC\.rs c.wP-TTj) Ai'!:M6s
. .
TI\ \:S Wt rtl'\ \J1'1 WIUS vel-""' Q10 f'r II ow piJ12 Vv11 bY _ .
(U.T\ 0V\ t)V\ 4.'[ (,lj T 1["/k ;}.&I),
r: \f\;vV\ Or sou.vlf) IN\.'I V\.cI AlA\) () \'JV[,


t-\l'\lAqEV)
(j1'\'I'co'\J Th 5 \ 0 FJu,\I\f: 0Il,
NOTICE OF FILING AND PROOF OF SERVICE
I certify that on June 17, 2011, I directed the original Memorandum in
Opposition to be electronically filed with the Appellate Court Administrator,
Appellate Records Section, and electronically served upon Jeffrey E. Ellis,
attorney for relator, using the court's electronic filing system.
/s/ Jeremy C. Rice ~
JEREMY C. RICE #055416
Assistant Attorney General
Jeremy.C.Rice@doj.state.or.us
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Adverse Party
State of Oregon
Page 1 - NOTICE OF FILING AND PROOF OF SERVICE
JCR:e1k\JUSTICE-#2859920-vl-Haugen_(memo_in_oppositionLS059519.DOC
Department of Justice
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
(503) 378-4402