First, it was not Mr. Nicita who filed the election law violation complaint, it was me. As a registered elector of Oregon City, I filed a sworn declaration supported by another citizen’s sworn declaration, a photograph of a petitioner and an email I received from Cabela’s confirming that recall petitioners’ use of Cabela’s trademarked logo was improper and not authorized by its trademark manager.

Second, the complaint was not filed with the Clackamas County elections office, it was filed (as required by law) with the Oregon Secretary of State.

Third, the gravamen of the complaint was not that petitoners simply approached citizens with “a Cabela’s pitch” and such a characterization omits the most egregious violations alleged, which may rise to the level of felonies. it is obvious that your reporter has never seen the complaint..

The complaint — supported by a citizen’s sworn declaration — alleges that the purpose of the petition was misrepresented and that the actual langiage on the petition was obscured. Petitioners beckoned citizens with signs bearing Cabela’s corporate logo. The petitioner then asked if the citizen liked Cabela’s. Below the logo, the sign read “Bring Back Cabelas’!” The petition was then handed to the citizen, who only saw that the true purpose of the petition was to recall a City Commissioner after displacing papers obscuring the explanatiion. Upon the citizen pointing out that the petition was a recall petition, the petitioner then stated that if Mr. Nicita were recalled, Cabela’s would come back.

It is an election law violation potentially punishable as a felony or by up to a $10,000 civil fine, for a petitioner to make false statements as to the purpose of a recall petition.

It is unfortunate that that 91��Ƶ — the official newspaper of legal record — could make so many material errors in reportng details of an official complaint of unlawful ocnduct.

I would be haoppy to supply 91��Ƶ with a true copy of the ccmplaint;. All that is required is a request.