Court case shadows CD-1 candidate Jim Greenfield

by NW Spotlight

Especially in the wake of the recent disgraces by Rep. Anthony Weiner and Rep. David Wu, voters in Oregon’s first congressional district are looking for candidates with integrity and character. To be able to withstand the many pressures of Washington DC requires candidates with strong values and principles.

A court case from earlier this year calls into question Jim Greenfield’s integrity, character and truthfulness. Jim Greenfield is one of five GOP candidates for the CD-1 special election primary. In a March 2011 judgment and oral opinion, an Oregon Circuit Court Judge excoriated Jim Greenfield for what the judge felt was intentionally giving false testimony, for breaching “the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing”, and for improper conduct.

The court case involved Jim Greenfield, with his two limited liability companies (LLC), seeking to evict a commercial property lessee and LLC partner, for not paying the rent due.

The court ruled against Jim Greenfield, did “not find Mr. Greenfield’s testimony and evidence credible”, and ordered Jim Greenfield to pay over $14,000 in court costs.

The improper conduct documented in the judge’s oral opinion included “a complete commingling of the assets…relates to the highly unusual practice that Mr. Greenfield insisted upon of having large cash payments made to him”, “the total or almost complete disregard of the formalities of limited liability companies…except when you believe it was to your advantage you really treated these as your own private piggy bank”, “insisting on cash payments” totaling $125,000, which the judge didn’t “know all the purposes and whether there were nefarious purposes”. The judge clarified that this wasn’t the usual business world use of the term “cash” which can involve checks, wired funds money orders, etc.; in the case of Mr. Greenfield, “cash” meant, in the judges words, “the green stuff, $20 dollar bills, $100 dollar bills”, which, “time after time” were going to an LLC where there were no corporate books or records, and where for two years of the lease the LLC that supposedly owned the commercial property didn’t even exist!

In directly addressing Jim Greenfield’s truthfulness, the judge made the following statements: “I reject Mr. Greenfield’s testimony. I do not find it credible.”, “I do not find Mr. Greenfield’s testimony and evidence credible.”, and “I do not accept Mr. Greenfield’s testimony on that” (regarding a promissory note).

The judge also explained that in evaluating witness testimony, juries are instructed that if they find any person has intentionally given false testimony in some part, they may distrust the rest of that person’s testimony. That explanation is a prelude to a rebuke of Jim Greenfield by the judge, who notes that Mr. Greenfield is highly educated, a law school graduate, admitted to the Bar in two states, has a high level of business sophistication and who certainly knows what it means to testify under oath. The judge continues, “Yet,…”, Jim gave testimony where the judge said “I don’t find that to be true. I find [it] just to be the opposite”.

The judge then took the unusual step of reading his scathing oral opinion AND having it printed and attached to his judgment order.

click here to read the court judgment and court’s oral opinion