Is Oregon poised to retaliate against whistleblower Stephen Singer, again?

As significant statutory changes to Oregon’s inadequate public defense system make their way through the legislature and onto the governor’s desk, it’s important to track the progress of the lawsuit filed last fall by improperly-fired Office of Public Defense Services Executive Director Stephen Singer.

Singer’s complaint about his mistreatment apparently caused the downfall of Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice Martha Walters, while it simultaneously lit a fire under other elected officials, who had for years sat back and allowed the state to shirk its constitutional responsibilities to poor defendants.

The suit is going about as well as can be expected for a well-regarded outsider who was tasked with fixing a broken, bloated, and wasteful system, and who ended up becoming the target of Walter’s abuse of authority and whistleblower retaliation, among other things.

Unsurprisingly, recent filings in the court case show that the state seeks to potentially heap more abuse of authority and retaliation upon Singer — this time by the Department of Justice and the Attorney General.

This revelation came in arguments and counterarguments for specific wording in a protective order in the matter. Specifically, the DOJ wants permission to “use or disclose” any confidential information it obtains about Singer or others “for legitimate law enforcement purposes.”¹

Singer’s attorney contends that such an order “would expose him and perhaps his loved ones to an unreasonable risk of unwarranted, and perhaps retaliatory, criminal investigation.”

Further, that “risk of surveillance and potential criminal prosecution” would likely have “a chilling effect” on whistleblowers “who file complaints against their state employer.”

The DOJ attorney justified its language as essentially boilerplate and consistent with its protective orders entered elsewhere. However, that claim was asserted through clenched teeth, with a warning to the court not to “interfere” with the DOJ’s duties, nor “contradict the Oregon DOJ’s statutory obligation.”

Singer’s counsel countered that those assertions were “alarming” and “simply wrong,” and pointed to several instances in which the courts had struck such language from other protective orders.

Given the DOJ’s and AG’s abysmal track record of retaliation and terrible decision-making, the court should absolutely err on the side of protecting Singer, the whistleblowing plaintiff.

A far better use of the DOJ’s time would be to look into why so many people are set on protecting the status quo of the financially bloated yet constitutionally inadequate public defense system, which lacks almost any means of tracking cases and dollars, and which just cost a chief justice her job.

¹ There was no mention of whether the DOJ would seek permission for illegitimate law enforcement purposes. Seriously, the DOJ’s inclusion of the word “legitimate” in their protective order draws attention to itself.