The tale of Cate Carter’s obsession with me is long, tedious and boring. The short version is that she left me but we parted amicably in 1998. Her mental condition is such that she grows increasingly fearful over the years and in 2006,  against all reason, paid a lot of money to to sue me under ORS 30.866, a civil statute which explicitly denies the respondent an award of damages. Having had almost no substantive contact with her in many years, I did not understand the severity of her mental state and, although confused and insulted, naively represented myself and ignored various mistruths and outright lies in her case against me. She got her order and I assumed that she would improve enough on her own that the order could be terminated without incident. I was grossly wrong and so far have spent dozens of hours and thousands of dollars trying to get this order lifted: a task which the first attorney I hired estimated would cost two or three, perhaps $5000. To date it has cost me more than $18,000. On top of this, she wants more than $25,000 she has paid to lawyers who tell her they can keep the order in position, even though she now lives (and has lived for years) half a world away in China.

Below is the text of their latest “settlement” offer, in the matter of Carter v. Bowman (Multnomah County case no. 060303051, CA A143679) with my point by point explanation of what it means.

1. Neither party will file a petition for review in the Oregon Supreme Court of the decision by the Court of Appeals in Carter v. Bowman, CA A143679.

Most criminal charges have a clear way to discharge them, but an ORS 30.866 order does not. Given that the entirety of my conduct in this case has been lawful free speech as defined in Oregon Law, the Supreme Court may have a particular interest in this case, the circumstances of which are fairly benign (if absurd) by ORS 30.866 standards. A petition for appeal will cost thousands of dollars, and a full review may cost each side $10,000 or more.

2. Petitioner will withdraw her Petition for Attorney Fees in Carter v. Bowman, CA A143679.

3. Petitioner will withdraw her Petition for Costs and Disbursements in Carter v. Bowman, CA A143679.

4. Respondent will pay Petitioner attorney fees in the amount of $16,000. Payment will be in the form of a cashier’s check or money order made payable to Petitioner’s attorney, Andy Simrin. The cashier’s check or money order must be delivered to Andy Simrin no later than June 11, 2012. Timely delivery of the full amount of $16,000 is a condition precedent to Petitioner’s obligations described in Paragraphs 1-3 above.

Her lawyers have badly misled her about the legal merits of her case, but charged her handsomely to pursue it. Here they are trying to seem beneficent by offering me a $9,000 discount on their bill if I ignore their insults and malfeasance, presumably hoping that Carter won’t figure out how poorly her interests have been represented. They want me to pay them for having insulted me and exploited my former friend.

5. Within 14 days after issuance of the appellate judgment in Carter v. Bowman, CA A143679, Respondent will file a motion in the Multnomah County Circuit Court to withdraw his motion to set aside the stalking protective order in this case.

6. Within 14 days after issuance of the appellate judgment in Carter v. Bowman, CA A143679, Petitioner will file a motion in the Multnomah County Circuit Court to re-enter the stalking protective order into the register in this case. Respondent will not object to Petitioner’s motion to re-enter the stalking protective order into the register in this case.

Although we’ve lived in the same area since she moved out in 1998, the extent of my contact with Carter since 1999 (before her 2006 law suit) had been a few banal birthday letters, wishing her good health. For all practical purposes I had no substantive contact with her, but possession of an ORS 30.866 “stalking order” is psychologically important to Carter. Carter’s lawyers apparently told her I would accept this insulting aspersion of my character and legal limitation on my rights. Over and over again I counseled them that this was not the case, but again they are presumably hoping that Carter won’t figure out how poorly they have served her, milking her neuroses for false hopes and endless fees.

7. The Parties stipulate, in perpetuity, that Petitioner is alarmed by Respondent as the term “alarm” is understood in ORS 163.730(1).

8. The Parties stipulate, in perpetuity, that Petitioner’s alarm is objectively reasonable.

Here they ask me to stipulate to a lie. Having either ignored or suborned perjury in Carter’s initial complaint of March 2006, then having maliciously impugned my character to lie about my personal history and pain in court that April, they hope I will again be so naive as to think that lies before the bench don’t matter. They will stipulate that they are moral pygmies and cowards, spawned by pigs and asses before I will stipulate to this lie. They badly hurt me and my former friend for money, and I will not so stipulate.

9. Within 14 days of signing this settlement agreement, Respondent will remove all postings he has made in any internet forum relating to Petitioner. Respondent’s failure to timely remove all postings as required will subject Respondent to liquidated damages in the amount of $5,000.

10. Respondent will refrain from making any disparaging statement relating to Petitioner in any public forum, including but not limited to any internet forum. Any non-compliance with this provision will subject Respondent to liquidated damages in the amount of $5,000 for each occurrence.

11. Any dispute between the Parties arising from Paragraphs 9-10 above shall be subject to binding arbitration. The prevailing party in such arbitration shall be entitled to costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney fees.

This is the part where they ask me to waive my free speech rights and open myself to another few decades of legal harassment and abuse by cowards who either lie to themselves and their friends or mislead the invisibly unwell to waste money on recreational lawsuits. Having picked an ugly fight with me in public, they now invite me to be tied to a chair in a private room. There is not enough moral fiber in them to form a solid turd.

By publicly posting true and accurate information, whether about their objective actions or my subjective feelings, I hope to prevent Carter and the likes of Callahan and Simrin from causing further unnecessary pain. Having failed to nudge my former friend toward addressing her own issues in a mature and responsible way, perhaps I can advance the law and warn others against future damage. Truth doesn’t count for much in our legal system, but it should count for something.

Carter’s legal attack against me was unnecessary and ill-advised from the start. Let all the world see how much so. This pain ends.

A few weeks ago a pretty white girl in my hometown had her face badly burned by some sort of acid. Initially she had reported to police that she was getting into her car when a black woman approached her, saying “Hey, pretty little girl, want to take a drink of this?” before throwing the caustic liquid on her face. Yesterday the police announced that the entire story had been a hoax, one in a long line of “bushy-haired man” stories such as those of Diana Downs, Susan Smart, Charles Stuart and Ashley Todd wherein a random black person is blamed for a crime which distracts from the real, white culprit. It was interesting, as one keen observer noted, how much the police sketch of the alleged attacker looked like the pretty white perpetrator. This got me thinking about crazy people, particularly pretty white ones, whom we are all conditioned to believe as surely as we are conditioned to blame all sorts of crime and malice on black people.

Rather than shrink from public attention, this young woman was very brave: speaking publicly of her ordeal, she volunteered to have pictures of her acid-scarred face and associated surgery covered prominently with photographs. Looking at one picture of her injuries, I was struck by how much her swollen face resembled another crazy woman, who had accused me of malice. This set me to meditating on “missing white girl syndrome” and the readiness of our culture to grab easy scapegoats. Where does the crazy come from, and what about us leads us to blithely accept the allegations of one group (pretty white girls) and quickly condemn another (scary black men)?

The same person who noted the similarity in facial structure between the police sketch and acid victim put forward that this might be a subconscious admission of guilt, noting that there were other cases where people with personality disorders had “alts” or alternative personalities who actively harassed them. Perhaps this was something like that. Again, I don’t know, but it got me thinking again about pretty white girls, scary men and general social gullibility.

What is it about our culture that values the white person’s life more than the black person, particularly valorizing the pretty white girl? Natalee Holloway or JonBenét Ramsey becomes an international celebrity when they are missing, while dozens of other cases are tossed on a neglected missing persons list, abandoned for years until a body may identified.

We want stories that confirm our fairytale understandings of the world more than we want truth, and the people who manipulate our media and sense of justice understand this. Such was the case in my own unfortunate experience with one self-centered, over-entitled daughter of privilege. Pretty white girls can learn early to play the system like a drum, and will do so until we tire of them or they are no longer so pretty. Whom they hurt in the process is entirely irrelevant to them, but a problem for us.

My best guess at this point is that Cate Carter, formerly of Adidas in Portland and Shanghai, is deeply self-centered. More so even than I, or the various lawyers who milk her for daddy’s money. She obviously thinks that her wishes should be law, and is not above lying on court affidavits to get this. I honestly believe that she thinks I would kill her, because I honestly believe she thinks she deserves it. It annoys me that she seems able to find a seemingly endless supply of lawyers who will either suborn perjury or accept it for $15,000 per shot. They will cynically make up stories about me because they understand as I did not that too many judges are lazy or inattentive, dumb as jurors and willing to accept the simplest fairy story on offer.

Huge parts of the criminal justice system are about willful ignorance of fact to shoe-horn every case into perhaps half a dozen simplistic narratives. The narrative which Acid Woman used was that she was so beautiful and worthy of attention that a jealous black woman would throw acid in her face. The narrative that Cate Carter put forward was similar, but cost me me several years of frustration and almost two years of gross wages. I was lucky. “Bushy-haired man” stories such as Acid Woman’s cost innocent people of color their lives, whether through Emmett Till killings or thousands of unjust prosecutions and convictions.

It is comforting to believe that all pretty white girls are innocent and true, that all bushy-haired men are evil and that all lawyers are just, judges attentive, prosecutors honest and police impeccable. That is a lie. When a narrative matches your view of the world but is suspiciously void of details, watch out. It could be a pretty white girl or other politician, lying to play you and mostly serve themselves.

Pray that they are not rich or crazy.

24 December 2009

Well Catherine,

This has certainly been an interesting year. First, you refused to vacate your gratuitous legal attack of 2006, then falsely accused me of felony burglary. When the police suggested an expensive mediation to address your fear, you agreed, then failed to appear. When this required much more expensive court action on my part, you contested. But again you failed to show such that, with your appeal, your actions shall have cost me nearly $20,000. Whatever the courts may finally decide, you owe me a significant moral debt, whose cash value is no less than eighteen thousand dollars, incurring annual interest at the federal prime rate plus two, beginning 25 February 2011. Please plan to pay it in full before returning to Oregon or Washington.

In some ways I suppose I should thank you for this odd trial by ordeal. At Republic 361 Glaucon asserts that the most perfect justice is to be just but considered unjust, a situation no sane person would hope for. With no good intent or rational plan, you put me in a crucible which helped prove my temper as a matter of public record. For the rest of my life I may speak of this wrong: sure of what each did and confident of who I was and remained in the face of repeated, provocative insult.

When you left me in February of 1998 there was a clear commitment to remain amicable, to work on things so that both of us could go on to better lives. Such lives presumably did not include legal threats on your part to file for a bogus restraining order, to make up self-serving stories to tell your friends or to repeatedly bring me into court with vague claims that I wanted to hurt you in some way and for reasons you could never specify. Your cartoon narrative never matched the facts and, not well when you left me, I was confused. When I sent you a banal 2003 birthday letter, I was surprised by the force of your irrational response, but naively gave you the benefit of the doubt as you repeatedly invoked the justice system against me in 1999, 2006 and 2008. When I asked you to voluntarily resolve this at no cost to you, you refused, hence my direct legal expenses. After twelve years and thirty-thousand dollars between us, what exactly do you have? You are in precisely the legal position you had in 1998, only older, tattooed, abroad and with fewer prospects. Moral integrity cannot be purchased like a Chinese child, but recompense can be made. Please do so.

I don’t know if you ever graduated from Reed College, Cate, but I do know that you failed to become what you once wanted. How much of this was over-reach and how much moral or mental illness I shall never know. It is not my business. What is mine, though, is to wonder at the nature of your obsession with me. Are you guilty for things you falsely told me about my brother? For having left under the conditions you did? Did these betray the honor you felt you owed your mother’s memory? Have you performed some sort of secret Mormon sealing voodoo, or did you feel at some level that you deserved to die? Did you hope to taunt or frustrate me into killing you, that false  stories of persecution would bring salvation? You are on your fourth lawyer as I write this and, from what I can see, have yet to think this through. You lurch from point to point like a drunken pinball, a disappointment to us both.

The central fact of our current relationship, Catherine, is that you have used the legal system to harass and annoy me, for which you owe me nearly $20,000. Any additional emotional charge or issue you may hold is secondary: Yours entirely. Not my problem. I believe that I have shown compassion over the past fifteen years and shall, upon payment, be open to helping you address your psychological issues as you may wish. If you have a death wish, show up at my house with a weapon and I shall address it logically, lawfully and with mercy. If you do not have a death wish, pay me my money and go in peace. I do not really care much either way, but do not die with this debt unfulfilled. You are stuck, Catherine, and must resolve this.

You have outlived your mother by raw count of years, which is more than I think you ever expected. What good that has done anyone is unclear. Your life could have been so much better, Catherine, and may yet be if you resolve this.

What you did to externalize your guilt and other psychological issues is understandable, but your decision to abuse the legal system was wrong. I can forgive the psychological pain but the moral debt of verifiable legal costs is a just one. Please pay the moral debt made by Cate Carter, to go forward with my blessing.

Happy Christmas, Catherine Lynne, wherever you may be.

- Rory

Like most modern police deparments, the Portland Police Bureau maintains a series of databases on persons of interest, including criminal complainants. After the partial victory of August 2009, I began to wonder at Carter’s mental competence and veracity more than before and asked a private investigator to check PPB records to find out how often she had contacted the police about things, given her previous sworn testimony about having contacted the police in 1999 when I’d returned her couch and some other online examples of her having claimed to be in contact with the police about supposed dangers. Did she call the police all the time or was I special? To my great astonishment, neither of those alleged interactions were in the basic record. Had she lied about the calls or had PPB just not recorded them? It was an odd development, to be sure. What else should I look at again?

PPDS NAME RECORD
PPDS NUMBER: 1434677
DATE PRINTED: 10/01/09

NAME: CARTER, CATHERINE L
SEX: F RACE: W AGE: 32
HGT: EYES: SKIN:
WGT: HAIR: BIRTH PLACE;
LAST KNOWN ADDRESS-MOST CURRENT FIRST ASSOC DATE
[ADDRESS B REDACTED] PORTLAND 04-09-08
[ADDRESS A REDACTED] PORTLAND 03-31-96

ASSOCIATED VEHICLES: NO ASSOCIATED VEHICLES FOUND

PPDS NAMES ASSOCIATED TO CRN: NO ASSOCIATED CRNS FOUND

ASSOCIATED CASES

CASE NBR 0893047 AGENCY PORTLAND POLICE REPORTED DATE 09-20-08 INVOLVEMENT VICTIM
LOC OF OCCURRENCE [ADDRESS B REDACTED]
OFFENSES 1: BURG -RES -UNK- FORCE ENTRY

CASE NBR 0833252 AGENCY PORTLAND POLICE REPORTED DATE 04-08-08 INVOLVEMENT VICTIM
LOC OF OCCURRENCE [ADDRESS B REDACTED]
OFFENSES 1: STALKING

CASE NBR 9529907 AGENCY PORTLAND POLICE REPORTED DATE 03-05-96 INVOLVEMENT COMPLAINANT
LOC OF OCCURRENCE [ADDRESS A REDACTED] PORTLAND
OFFENSES 1: LARCENY-FRM BUILDINGS

CHARGES: NO CUSTODY INFORMATION FOUND

MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION: NO MISCELLANEOUS NAME INFORMATION FOUND

END OF RECORD T438677
TERMINAL ID X4OZ

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

CATHERINE LYNNE CARTER, Petitioner
v
RORY GREY BOWMAN, Respondent

Case No. 060303051

STATEMENT FOR ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS, AND DISBURSEMENTS FOR RESPONDENT

The undersigned attorney offers the following facts in support of an award of reasonable and necessary attorney fees, costs, and disbursements:

1. Respondent is entitled to recover attorney fees, costs, and disbursements pursuant to ORS 30.866(4)(c), as interpreted consistently with Article I, Sections 10 and 20 of the Oregon Constitution.

2. Legal fees, including the number of hours and services provided in this matter by each attorney, clerk, and legal assistant in the hourly rates for each are set forth in detail in Exhibit 1. The total sum of these fees is $10,790.00. Exhibit 1 is summarized as follows:

Name, Position, Hourly Rate, Number of Hours, Fees

Bear Wilner-Nugent, Attorney, $100 (initial consult/travel), 2.4, $240.00

Bear Wilner-Nugent, Attorney, $150 flat fee (first demand letter), 1 task, $150.00

Bear Wilner-Nugent, Attorney, $200 (basic rate), 52.0, $10,400.00

3. The specific factors supporting an award and the amount of legal fees pursuant to ORS 20.075 or other statute or rule are set forth in Exhibit 2.

4. Litigation expenses billable directly to the client that are not overhead expenses already reflected in the hourly rate for legal services are set forth in detail in Exhibit 3. The total sum of these litigation expenses is $1158.93.

5. Costs and disbursements supported by ORCP 68 A(2) or other statute or rule, consisting of the prevailing party fee, are set forth in detail in Exhibit 4. The total sum of these costs and disbursements is $85.00.

6. In summary, respondent is entitled to an award of reasonable and necessary attorney fees in the sum of $10,790.00, litigation expenses in the sum of $1158.93, and a prevailing party fee in the sum of $85.00, for a total of $12,033.93.

I hereby declare that the above statement, including the information contained in the exhibits to this statement, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I understand it is made for use as evidence in court and is subject to penalty for perjury.

Date 9/3/09
Bear Wilner-Nugent, OSB#044549
Counsel for Respondent

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH
FAMILY COURT

Catherine Lynne Carter DOB: 2/24/77
v
Rory Grey Bowman DOB: 10/6/65

Case 0603 03051
ORDER

On the motion of the Respondent to vacate the Final Stalking Protective Order and Judgment signed by Judge Steven A Todd on April 21, 2006 is vacated.

Signed August 21, 2009 by Circuit Court Judge R. K. Mickelson