Corrupt Oregon Judge Assisting Perverse Prosecution In Case


Albany, Ore. (US~Observer) — A travesty and mockery of justice is currently occurring in the racketeering case against Randy Gray of Albany, Ore. Circuit Judge Thomas McHill has teamed with a prosecution right out of the “Pit of Hell” to attempt to successfully prosecute the innocent Gray.

Gray, who is the father of six children and who has an exemplary wife, is — without question — honest, ethical and, above all: innocent! On the other hand, McHill and the prosecution, condoned and promoted by corrupt Oregon Attorney General Ellen F. Rosenblum, are nothing more or less than hypocritical thieves, keeping all pertinent defense evidence from the jury.

To me, McHill can be described only as a perverse, filthy whore, standing on a street corner, infecting unsuspecting clients with AIDS. In my opinion, Rosenblum is — without question — his pimp. McHill’s black robe is totally appropriate!

Why in the world would a court and prosecution order Gray’s defense not to mention the fact that he didn’t believe he was involved in selling securities? This is exactly like accusing someone of murder and then refusing to allow that person to state that they didn’t commit murder. This is a pure police state, fascist action.

Why would the court refuse to allow the jury to know that co-defendant and career criminal Derek Dunmyer staged the crimes without Gray’s knowledge? Shouldn’t the jury know that Dunmyer was given a plea bargain by Oregon’s corrupt Attorney General’s Office, wherein he simply had to plead guilty to a misdemeanor crime, with no jail time? Shouldn’t the jury be informed that the factually dangerous criminal, Dunmyer, has been allowed to keep his real estate license, issued by the State of Oregon, and is currently selling property? Shouldn’t the jury know that this is all part of the agreement, just to get Dunmyer on the witness stand and commit perjury in front of them, against Gray?

Shouldn’t the jury know that the court is not allowing the defense to call Gray’s prior attorneys as witnesses — that the attorneys had been paid to make sure that the dealings between Gray, Whitney and Dunmyer were all legal and aboveboard? Shouldn’t the jury know that Dunmyer went to a prestigious Portland, Ore., law firm at the time he was scamming Gray and the investors? That this firm told Dunmyer that the transactions were securities and that he kept this from Gray? Why in the world would McHill and the prosecution want to keep all of this highly relevant truth from the jury?

Shouldn’t the jury know that during the time Dunmyer was scamming Gray and numerous investors, Dunmyer was bringing in illegal aliens to provide dirt-cheap labor on the homes that he was building; that Dunmyer was using other people’s bank accounts for payroll, in order to commit tax evasion; that Dunmyer squandered hundreds of thousands of investor’s dollars on gambling trips to Las Vegas, expensive vehicles, Rolex watches and a multimillion-dollar home?

Should the jury know that this investigative reporter received a call two weeks ago from one of the State’s witnesses claiming that prosecutor Daniel Wendel had called him and threatened him, “scaring the hell out of him.” According to this witness, if he refused to allow Wendel to instruct him on what he should say in front of the jury, that it would be “the worst mistake of his life.”

Wouldn’t the jury want to know that if it convicts Gray, he will spend years in prison, his family will be completely destroyed and his life will virtually be over? I have investigated thousands of cases during my career, and I have never witnessed a more vile, corrupt, “Star Chamber” trial than the one Gray is being forced to endure.

The legal system, McHill, the prosecution and even Rosenblum call all of this justice. Hardly. I call it pure evil.

One of the greatest evils will be if Gray is convicted, and the jurors discover the truth. Can you imagine the guilt they will feel when they discover they aided in Gray’s false conviction? How will they sleep at night?

You, my readers, have just read the unadulterated truth about the attempted false conviction of Randy Gray of Albany, Ore. Now, read the “politically correct” version (in part) of this tragic story…

Judge Tom McHill, Circuit Court of Linn County, is currently presiding over the case State of Oregon v. Randy Gray. The defendant was charged in August 2011 with one count of racketeering involving securities fraud and selling of unregistered securities, to wit: an investment contract; 16 counts of selling an unregistered securities (investment contract); and 16 counts of theft. Prosecuting the case are Assistant Attorneys General Daniel Wendel and Simon Whang. Securities law itself is intentionally vague and unclear to prevent unscrupulous members of society from evading securities law and is designed to catch and imprison any unwary violators. Because of an Oregon court ruling, State v. Jacobs, 55 Or App 406, 413 (1981), securities violators are not subject to mens rea, or the common law test of criminal liability requiring intent to commit the crime. Additionally, a defendant’s good faith belief and consultation with legal counsel are not relevant defenses and are inadmissible at trial, including in the trial of Gray.

At issue, McHill has ruled on a number of motions that should cause concern to the public that justice and consistency are not at the forefront of this judge’s mind or practice. In a motion in limine submitted by the State in early 2013, the State moved to not allow Gray to testify that he intended to and did repay lenders for their lost “investment” funds out of his own pocket. McHill ruled that the crime took place on Aug. 29, 2008, and nothing that happened afterward was relevant. He likened the scenario to someone taking a candy bar from a store, then turning around and taking it back; the crime was committed when taking the candy bar. The problem with that example is that the judge assumed a crime was committed before determining there was a crime committed.

Additionally, McHill ruled in a pretrial motion that expert witnesses would not be allowed to testify as to the interpretation of law. On the first day of Gray’s trial, McHill reversed his ruling and allowing the testimony of expert witnesses. Reversing rulings demonstrates inconsistency, changing the rules of the game favoring one party over the other and causing hardship on the defense to find an expert witness with no notice.

Finally, in the pretrial ruling based on the State v. Jacobs (1981), the case that prevented Gray from testifying that he didn’t know he was selling a securities or that he relied on legal counsel, McHill broadened his pretrial ruling to include the co-defendants and witnesses. These inconsistencies and mid-trial rule changes pervert justice and draw into question whether defendants are truly innocent until proven guilty. Thus, it seems that Gray has already been convicted of theft and selling unregistered securities and securities fraud in the case State of Oregon v. Randy Gray, a clear perversion of justice.

I ask any of my readers who believe in God to pray that Gray is acquitted. Pray that McHill and the prosecution are promptly punished for what they are doing. And, equally important, pray that God will forgive the jury if they are deceived and convict an innocent man.

Read the first article here.

–Edward Snook

Personal Liberty

US~Observer Staff

is a nationwide newspaper that focuses on innocent victims of false prosecution. It uses each of its editions as a tool to secure the vindication of its clients. Its website is

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.