The document is a letter from attorney John DiLorenzo addressing Les Carlough of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality regarding the criminal prosecution of Patrick Lucas for water pollution. DiLorenzo expresses concerns that the department has not acted in good faith during negotiations and suggests that Joni Hammond from the DEQ was deceitful in pursuing criminal charges against Lucas despite ongoing settlement discussions. He demands an immediate explanation for these actions, emphasizing the importance of trust between regulatory agencies and citizens.

1. ..•
HAGEN, DYE, HIRSCHY & DILORENZO, P.C.
AITORNEYSATLAW
NlNSfEENTH FLOOR
HF.NJ. FlI.ANKI.IN PLAZA
ONE: S.W. COLUMBIA STRF.lrr
I'ORrLAND, ORro<:>N Sl72J~2037
(50J) 222-18U
FAX: ($03) 274·7979
JOHN A. DiLDRENZO. Jll
AoImia.cd in Oreion.,d DisIrict ofCoiwnbia IN R£,.':' "PLl>A$S lUU'BR
E-Mail Addr"lOljdiIor1!D"l~<>OIll TOm..I;NO.!
~ov~erl07 1997
via Fax - 229-6945
and regular mail
Mr. Les Carlough
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Enforcement Section
2020 S. W. Fourth Avenue. Suite 400
Portland, Oregon 97201~987
Re: Settlement Offer ill the Matter of Lehman Development
Corporation
DEQ Nos. WQMW-ER-97-032 J WQMW-ER-97.073
Dear Les:
As you know. the Umatilla County District Attorney initiated. criminal proceedings
in August of 1997 against Patrick Lucas, chargingMr, Lucas with unlawful water pollution in the first
degree. A pretrial conference is being held today on that case, Oregon v. Lucas, CF91-0S63.
On September 23, 1997, I infonned you that Mr. Lucas was confronted by the police
concerning an indictment in the case which was never served on him. At that time. the police phoned
the court and, after their conversation, declined to take Mr. Lucas into custody but. rather. provided
him a new court date in which to respond to the indictment.
Following that confrontation, I telephoned you and asked whether the Department of
Environmental Quality had anything to do with this criminal prosecution. I asked you this because.
rhe indictment was dated August 7, 1997. and indicated that Joni Hammond, of'your office, testified.
During our September 23. 1991. phone conference, you told me that the Department of
Environmental Quality did not initiate the prosecution and that Joni Hammond was merely called as
a witness to testify.

2. HAG:EN, DYE, HmsCHY & DILoRENZO, P.C.
AITORNEYSAT LAW
Mr. Les Carlough
November 10, 1997
Page 2
As you also recall, in August of this year Mr. Lucas and I met 'With you, Mr. Kollias,
and Ms. Hammond at your office. AI Murrey of your Pendleton office participated via phone. The
purpose of that meeting was to negotiate a settlement of the administrative actions whichDEQ had
commenced related to the MAC. At no time during that discussion did Ms. Hammond notify us that
a grand jury investigation was proceeding or that she had testified. During our conversation on the
27th of September. I asked you why the DEQ did not, in good faith, make us aware of
Ms. Hammond's testimony prior to reaching an agreement. You had no response. You did,
however. once again assure me that the criminal proceeding was not being driven by the Department
of Environmental Quality.
I am enclosing a copy of a fax I have received from Mr. Steven Thomas. Mr. Lucas' .
attorney in Pendleton. Mr. Thomas states that "The D.A, Matt Galli, in response to my suggestion
.
that he dismiss this matter because he really did not have a case beyond a reasonable doubt, told me
.
that he would need to speak. to the officer involved, Trooper Williams, and Joni Hammon j ofDEQ.
He further told me that' Joni Hammond really wants this guy (Lucas) to go to jail.'"
I am also enclosing a copy of a memorandum between various state troopers dated
January 6. 1997. As you know, in December of 1Sf96. we had entered into a Mutual Agreement and
Order with the Department of Environmental Q.JaJity which provided at paragraph &i:'{4) that my
client would have until January 31. 1997 to subm'; to the Department for review and aj.proval final
design plans and specifications for modifications of the facilities. Notwithstanding the Mutual
Agreement and Order and my client's performance thereunder, the internal memorandum reflects that
Ms. Hammond was actively seeking a criminal prosecution against Mr. Lucas.
Les, these documents make clear to me that the Department has not been .:ealing with
us in good faith. In fact, the documents make clear that Ms. Hammond has been no less than
deceitful as she has, .at every step, attempted to pursue this matter against Mr. Lucas knowing we
were in the midst of good faith negotiations with you,
I respect you as a public servant and as an individual and choose to believe that you
had no knowledge of Ms. Hammond's activities. Regardless, I am not going to let this issue rest.
H;WP~AD()537LMA.1..."R 3798-006

3. HAGEN~ DYE, HIRSCHY & DILoRENZO, P.C.
ATI'ORNEYS AT LAw
. Mr. Les Carlough
November 10, 1997
Page 3
I believe it is inappropriate that agencies of OUI" state government deal with the regulated community
in this way. r demand an explanation immediately. If I do not receive a satisfactory explanation. I
will pursue the matter until there is a satisfactory resolution. This conduct on behalf of at least one
of your staff transcends any issues which the Department may have with Lehman Development Co.
Rather, it goes to the core of defining the relationship between regulatory agencies and citizens.
Please do not delay in fashioning your response.,
Very truly yours,
John Dil.orenzo, Jr.
JADJla
Enclosures
cc: J. Patrick Lucas (via regular mail)
Steven Thomas (via fax and regular mail)
H:Wi'6JAD'DS37LMALTR 3198-006