YouTube - Barden4AG's Channel Page 1 of 2

Browse Upload

http://www.youtube.com/user/Barden4AG 10/20/2010
YouTube - Barden4AG's Channel Page 2 of 2

Barden4AG Subscriptions (5)

Add as Friend |
Block User | Send Message

Andersonf... RogueOnMi... dansevers... EmmerForG...

Profile
Name: Chris Barden Subscribers (7)
Channel Views: 1,075
Total Upload Views: 627
Joined: July 29, 2010
Last Visit Date: 1 week ago heidiqtmn Sharon4An... datasuppl... ProdigalS...

Website: http://www.barden4ag.com/

I am running as the Republican endorsed

candidate for Attorney General for the great State
of Minnesota.
Channel Comments
About Me: There are no comments for

Raised in Minnesota, I have loved our great state Add Comment

through middle school, high school, undergrad and
graduate school at the U of M, public service and
law practice. Please see my website at
www.barden4ag.com to learn much more!

Hometown: Edina Minnesota

Country: United States
Occupation: Doctor and Lawyer
Schools: Edina High School - University of
Minnesota - Harvard Law School

http://www.youtube.com/user/Barden4AG 10/20/2010
 October 20, 2010
Greetings Fellow Minnesotans,
In 2008, we learned that the integrity of Minnesota elections could have an enormous
impact on our entire nation. Minnesota’s complicated election of a U.S. Senator was the subject
of national attention and concern. With the controversial ACORN group claiming to have
registered 43,000 new voters, more than half of the overseas military ballots uncounted, various
counties applying different standards for eliminating ballots, reports of felons voting illegally,
reports of illegal immigrants being "vouched" in to vote, and other reported irregularities, the
election invited investigation. Minnesota received even more national attention as our new
Senator cast the decisive (60th) vote for the controversial Federal Health Care Law. With two
ACORN endorsed public officials – the Secretary of State and Attorney General -- overseeing
Minnesota’s unusual “vouching” election system -- national observers have become increasingly
concerned that Minnesota remains a prime target for systemic voter fraud. Due to these concerns,
the U.S. Congress recently served notice that a detailed investigation of Minnesota’s 2008
election process – including a review of the role of ACORN and felon voters -- is in process.
Such important controversies highlight the role of the Attorney General of Minnesota, the lawyer
for the people. The Attorney General’s Office should play an important role in guarding our right
to an honest, trustworthy election process.
As an independent private citizen and national expert in law, health care, science, and
complex reforms, I was asked by many prominent Minnesotans to enter the race for Attorney
General in the 2010 election. I agreed to join the race and have focused on several goals including
applying essential principles of good government, improving the business climate of our state to
facilitate job growth, vigorously protecting consumers, challenging the Federal Health Care Law,
and implementing-enforcing Photo ID election reforms.
During our campaign, I have methodically studied the current Attorney General’s Office.
For 40 continuous years one party has controlled the MN AG’s Office. Historically, such
political monopolies have often led to misconduct and corruption in government. A review of the
evidence demonstrates that the current AG’s Office is perhaps the most scandal-ridden in the
history of our state. As reported by WCCO-TV and numerous witnesses nearly one half of the
entire staff of legal professionals of the incumbent Attorney General left the office, many in
disgust, others reportedly fired for refusing illegal instructions. At least eight Assistant Attorney
Generals have provided sworn testimony documenting corruption and/or misconduct in the
AG’s Office. Many others have corroborated these consistent reports. A former Department
Head was quoted describing the AG’s Office as a “culture of dishonesty” where the subordinates
are routinely asked to “do unethical and even unlawful things.” Another Assistant Attorney
General, a former Manager of the Medicaid Fraud Division, has given sworn testimony regarding
fraud and deception in the AG’s Office. Finally, Attorney General Swanson has recently
admitted her personal role in transferring $249,999 of what should have been taxpayer funds to
the notorious ACORN organization apparently in the same year ACORN endorsed her and
worked for her election (2006). Despite such multiple, converging indices of misconduct,
insufficient attention has been paid to the consistent, documented, multi-source evidence of
scandals and turmoil in the troubled MN AG’s Office. To protect our state -- and nation -- from
future harm a more complete investigation and reforms are required.
Sincerely,
Chris Barden, Ph.D., J.D.
SUMMARY DRAFT REPORT of October 20, 2010 – Mon 2 PM
By R. Chris Barden, Ph.D., J.D. rcbarden@mac.com ; 952-657-5850

QUESTION: Will the current office of Minnesota Attorney General be remembered as the
most scandal-ridden in Minnesota history?
1. What are the non-partisan Essential Rules and Principles of Good Government?

2. What was the national impact of Minnesota’s 2008 flawed, ACORN-tainted election system?

3. OFFICE-GATE: Why have dozens of Attorney General Swanson’s legal staff reportedly
left the office, many in disgust, with several filing sworn statements documenting unethical
and/or illegal activity in the office? Did 68 lawyers (apparently about half the staff) leave the
AG’s legal staff, with many quitting in disgust? Why have seven attorneys provided sworn
testimony to the Legislative Auditor reporting unethical and illegal misconduct in the AG’s office?
Why were no legislative hearings held to investigate these important questions?

4. ACORN-GATE: Why did Attorney General Swanson transfer Minnesota taxpayer dollars
to the controversial ACORN organization? Was any of that money used to support her
election in 2006? Why hasn’t a forensic audit been done? Why did AG Swanson apparently
avoid answering questions on this issue? Why did AG Swanson transfer $249,999 of what
should have been taxpayer dollars directly to ACORN? Why was the “slush fund” law set up in
the first place? Why was the Capitol One lawsuit settled for only $1 dollar under the “slush fund”
limit? Why has AG Swanson refused to testify or give a sworn statement on these questions? Did
ACORN later endorse Swanson as part of an illegal payoff scheme? Why were no legislative
hearings held to investigate these important questions?

5. AG OFFICE MEDICAID FRAUD ISSUES?: Why did a managing Assistant Attorney

General report fraud, deception, and misconduct in the Attorney General’s Office? Why did
Paul Civello, J.D., (magna cum laude and Order of the Coif, Univ, of Minnesota), Ph.D.
(UCLA) the former Managing Medicaid Fraud Investigations attorney, testify that Swanson
“deceived” the federal government. Why did another lawyer reportedly describe office conduct as
“fraud”? Why were no legislative hearings held to investigate these important questions?

6. AG OFFICE PRESSURE TO BREAK THE LAW?: Why have so many former Assistant
Attorney General staff filed sworn statements complaining of pressure to violate ethics rules
and the law? Why did Harvard Law graduate Amy Lawler, J.D. and SEVEN licensed attorneys –
members of Swanson’s own legal staff -- reportedly document pressure in the AG’s Office to
commit unethical and/or criminal acts including apparently perjury and obstruction of justice?
Why were no legislative hearings held to investigate these important questions?

7. “CULTURE OF DISHONESTY”?: Why did a former Department Head reportedly

describe AG Swanson’s office as demonstrating a “culture of dishonesty”?: A former
Attorney General Department Head also reportedly described pressure in the AG’s office to do
"unethical and even unlawful things". Why were no legislative hearings held to investigate these
important questions?

8. MISINFORMATION: Has the current AG made repeated efforts to misinform the media
and the public? Did AG Swanson falsely claim to the press that the loss of 1/2 of her legal staff
was normal office attrition when multiple witnesses document her office losses appear to be
unprecedented? Did AG Swanson falsely claim to not be involved in the ACORN settlement
payoff when she, in fact, personally signed the settlement document? Has AG Swanson falsely
claimed that the Legislative Auditor “cleared her” of all allegations when the Auditor’s
investigation was narrowly limited to financial issues – and offered no opinions regarding ethics,
criminal, or misconduct allegations? Was Attorney Swanson involved in manipulative efforts to
smear whistleblowers in the office -- including a deceptive “report” by T. Mengler?

1
EXHIBITS: Official documents, news accounts, and other reports:
1. Exhibit A – Feb. 13, 2006 – Official Minnesota Settlement Document, Capitol One case
(ACORN-gate – Swanson personally signs the document turning over $249,999 taxpayer dollars
to ACORN. ACORN reportedly endorses Swanson and gives her an A+ rating. Payola?)
2. Exhibit B – March 7, 2008 - by Journalist Erik Black, Staffers detail climate of stress,
politicization in AG’s office, MinnPost. See,
http://www.minnpost.com/ericblack/2008/03/07/1104/staffers_detail_climate_of_stress_politicization_in_ags_office
3. Exhibit C – March 14, 2008 - Statement of Former Assistant Attorney General Amy Lawler, J.D.
4. Exhibit D – March 18, 2008 by Journalist Erik Black, More lawyers describe pressure by Swanson
to commit what they viewed as unethical conduct. MinnPost See,
conducthttp://www.minnpost.com/ericblack/2008/03/18/1192/more_lawyers_describe_pressure_b
y_swanson_to_commit_what_they_viewed_as_unethical_conduct
5. Exhibit E – March 18, 2008, Pugsmire, Tim, Suspended lawyer alleges ethical lapses in
Swanson’s office, MPR NewsQ
6. Exhibit F - May 12, 2008 Legislative Auditor James Nobles report (ACORN funds review)
7. Exhibit G – May 27, 2008, Mengler, Thomas M., Report “Regarding Allegations of Professional
Misconduct Raised by Assistant Attorney General Amy Lawler”
8. Exhibit H = May 28, 2008, by Journalist Eric Black, MinnPost, An explanation for recent agonies
in attorney general's office: Mike Hatch's traumatic reign, See,
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/05/28/2009/an_explanation_for_recent_agonies_in_attorn
ey_generals_office_mike_hatchs_traumatic_reign
9. Exhibit I – May 29, 2008 by Journalist Eric Black, MinnPost, “They Will Come After You”,
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/05/29/2018/they_will_come_after_you
10. Exhibit J- June 3, 2008 Legislator Auditor James Nobles 2nd report (7 attorneys under oath
apparently document corruption including apparently criminal misconduct in the Attorney
General’s Office)
11. Exhibit K – Sept. 29, 2008 Statement of Fmr Asst. Attorney General Paul Civello, Ph.D., J.D. (A
former Managing attorney alleges corruption and fraud in the Attorney General’s Office)
12. Exhibit L – April 20, 2009 - WCCO iTeam report (Office-gate, Paul Civello interview) See,
http://wcco.com/iteam/iteam.ag.accusations.2.989842.html
13. Exhibit M – Oct. 15, 2009 – See, Fitzgibbons, Mark, ACORN, Payola and Color of Law,
American Thinker See,
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/acorn_payola_and_color_of_law.html
14. Exhibit N –July 15, 2010 - Letter from U.S. Rep. Issa to Sec. of State Ritchie (Ordering Ritchie to
preserve election records for upcoming federal investigations into ACORN influence and felony
voting in Minnesota elections)
15. Exhibit O – Jan 2009, Rosengren, John, Power of Attorney, Minnesota Monthly,
http://www.minnesotamonthly.com/media/Minnesota-Monthly/January-2009/Power-of-
Attorney/index.php?cparticle=1&siarticle=0#artanc
16. Exhibit P – Constitution of Minnesota, Article VIII Impeachment

2
QUESTION: Will the current office of Minnesota Attorney General be remembered as the
most scandal-ridden in Minnesota history?

Oct. 19, 2010

Greetings Fellow Citizens,

Today I want to discuss much needed reforms, a positive vision, and a more effective
future for the Minnesota Office of Attorney General.

1. MINNESOTA DESERVES CLEAN GOVERNMENT: Non-partisan Essential Rules

and Principles of Good Government are necessary to earn and maintain the respect and trust of
citizens.
Citizens across America and Minnesota have lost trust in government because both State
and Federal governments have violated essential rules of good government. These rules
include FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY (reducing government debt), LEGISLATIVE INTEGRITY
(laws publicly debated before enactment, no legislative kickbacks), and ensuring laws remain
within CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS. Other basic and essential rules of good government
include HONESTY, INTEGRITY, and TRANSPARENCY. These hallmarks of clean
government should be a non-partisan priority for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.
When government officials violate principles of honesty and integrity they can be removed by
elections or impeachment. Minnesota law provides, for example, that if an Attorney General is
guilty of “corrupt conduct in office or for crimes and misdemeanors”, impeachment can lead to
removal from office. 1

2. DID MINNESOTA's 2008 CONTROVERSIAL U.S. SENATE ELECTION

BURDEN OUR NATION WITH AN UNPOPULAR FEDERAL HEALTH CARE
REFORM LAW? COULD ADDITIONAL NATIONAL DAMAGE BE DONE IN 2012?

Minnesota was thrust into the national spotlight during our 2008 Senatorial contest
between Norm Coleman and Al Franken. Historians will long debate whether Minnesota’s failure
to implement election reforms (e.g., Photo ID) before the 2008 election was a key factor in the
enactment of the controversial Federal Health Care Law. With the majority of overseas military
ballots not counted, more votes tallied than voters registered, various counties applying disparate
standards for eliminating ballots, reports of felons voting illegally2, reports of illegal immigrants

1
MINNESOTA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE VIII IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL FROM OFFICE
Section 1. Impeachment powers. The house of representatives has the sole power of impeachment through a
concurrence of a majority of all its members. All impeachments shall be tried by the senate. When sitting for that
purpose, senators shall be upon oath or affirmation to do justice according to law and evidence. No person shall be
convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the senators present. Sec. 2. Officers subject to impeachment;
grounds; judgment. The governor, secretary of state, auditor, attorney general and the judges of the supreme court,
court of appeals and district courts may be impeached for corrupt conduct in office or for crimes and misdemeanors;
but judgment shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of
honor, trust or profit in this state. The party convicted shall also be subject to indictment, trial, judgment and
punishment according to law. [Amended, November 2, 1982; November 3, 1998]
2
See e.g., Barnes, Ed, Felons Voting Illegally May Have Put Franken Over the Top in Minnesota, Study Finds, Ed July 12, 2010,
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12/felons-voting-illegally-franken-minnesota-study-finds/ "Phil Carruthers
of the Ramsey County attorney's office … found that the Minnesota Majority "had done a good job in their review." ;
See also, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123197800446483619.html

3
being "vouched" in to vote, and other irregularities, some feel the election was, in the words of
one local legal expert “an obvious, embarrassing violation of the Constitution." 3
Looking to the future, it is troubling that Minnesota's unusual and easily manipulated
"vouching law" – permitting 15 people with no identification of any kind to vote if "vouched for"
by one registered voter -- is still in effect. In addition, the same controversial ACORN-endorsed
officials, Attorney General Swanson and Secretary of State Ritchie, could be overseeing the 2012
election process. Attention will increasingly focus on Minnesota as the 2012 Presidential election
approaches.
U.S. Congressional investigations of Minnesota voter fraud in 2008 appear in process due
to national concerns about harm from Minnesota’s unreformed, “vouching” election system. On
July 15, 2010, U.S. Rep. Darryl Issa, (R-CA), Ranking Member (and possible future Chair) of the
U.S. House of Representatives Committee On Government Oversight and Reform, requested
Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and other officials “retain indefinitely” all records
from the 2008 November election. (See, Congressional Letter, Exhibit N 4). Rep. Issa’s letter
states, “The likelihood that voter fraud perpetrated by convicted felons could have influenced the
outcome of the 2008 Minnesota Senate race justifies further investigation into these matters.”
The Attorney General is the one state officer with the responsibility to protect the
essential legal rights of all Minnesotans – including the right to a secure, reliable election.
Consistent and repeated reports of scandals, misconduct, and turmoil in the Minnesota Office of
Attorney General have added to the growing local and national concerns about the integrity of
Minnesota’s election system.

4. OFFICEGATE – Multiple news stories and witness statements report unethical

misconduct, office mismanagement, mass turnover, scandal, and turmoil in Attorney General
Swanson’s legal staff:

4A. The WCCO-TV iTeam reported about half of the Attorney General legal
team has left the Office: In a televised report, the WCCO Investigation Team
documented several major scandals in Attorney General Swanson's Office. They reported
in 2008 “since Swanson took office two years ago, 68 staff attorneys have left their jobs.
That's about half of the total number of attorneys”… (See, WCCO report, April 20,
2009, Exhibit L, http://wcco.com/iteam/iteam.ag.accusations.2.989842.html ).

4B. Assistant Attorney General Amy Lawler, (J.D., Harvard Law School)
reported a “staggering turnover rate” and staff lawyers being “afraid to speak up”: The
information reported by WCCO is quite consistent with other sources including former
Assistant Attorney General and Harvard Law School graduate Amy Lawler, J.D., who
reported, “I understand that at least 52 attorneys have left the office over the course of
the last year, in an office staffed by approximately 126 attorneys. This is a staggering
turnover rate… Many have wanted to speak up, but have been afraid to do so…” (See,
Lawler report of March 14, 2008 at Exhibit C).

3
See, Paulsen, Michael S. The Minnesota Recount Was Unconstitutional, Wall Street Journal , JANUARY 15,
2009 " the Minnesota recount is a legal train wreck...an obvious, embarrassing violation of the Constitution."
4
The author of the letter to Mark Ritchie, Rep. Issa, Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, has been instrumental in exposing ACORN nation-wide voter fraud . In July of
2009, he released an 88-page report detailing a host of ACORN abuses. See,
http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=883%3Awere-minnesota-
felons-registered-to-vote-by-acorn&catid=22&Itemid=5

4
 4C. Journalist Eric Black wrote several detailed articles documenting
unethical misconduct, turmoil, and gross mismanagement in the Attorney General’s
office:

4C1. (See, Black, E. “Traumatic reign”, MinnPost, at Exhibit H,

http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/05/28/2009/an_explanation_for_recent_agonies_i
n_attorney_generals_office_mike_hatchs_traumatic_reign )… “Attorneys and other
subordinates describe working for Hatch and Swanson as hellish, featuring
verbal abuse and pressure to do things they believed were unethical... that
conclusion is based on dozens of interviews with present and former officials of
the office… the more than 30 sources interviewed for this story asked for
anonymity because they fear retaliation. … a long-standing attorney, still in the
office, said that, under both Hatch and Swanson, “it’s a cult-like atmosphere.
They demand blind obedience. Nobody’s criticism is tolerated.” … [IN
CONTRAST] Former Attorney General Warren Spannaus is the last AG to take
over from a member of the other party and he recalls allowing everyone to stay,
asking only that the incumbent deputies step down to assistant AG positions so
he could appoint his own deputies. Several attorneys who were in the office
under Hatch’s predecessor, Hubert H. “Skip” Humphrey III, say they don’t recall
any purges when Humphrey took over, or during his long tenure… “the quality
of the office has just dropped drastically, “ Its become just a horrible place to
work.. This is not an office that you can anymore work at with much self-
respect.” From the viewpoint of the Minnesota public, he said, “The story is the
continued plunging of competence and experience levels in the Office. Can you
really run a law firm if the median experience is under four or five years?” …

4C2. (See, Black, E., MinnPost “They’ll come after you”, at Exhibit I,
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/05/29/2018/they_will_come_after_you ) …
This article is a description of angry legal staff a climate of fear and intimidation
in the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office under Hatch and Swanson…. a
former Department head in the AG’s office… “I just felt that these people are
unethical and I don’t want to work with them anymore.” … he said he told the
Legislative Auditor, under oath, that the ultimate issue was: “This not about Lori
Swanson’ management style. These things are all about a deeper problem… First
they’ve developed a culture of dishonesty. By “they” I mean Swanson and
Hatch. Number two, they fairly routinely ask subordinates to do unethical and
even unlawful things… they tell them to do these things without any regard for
the impact on the attorney or the state. Finally every decision appears to be made
based on political considerations.”

4C3. (See, Black, E., “Staffers detail climate of stress”, MinnPost,

Exhibit B,
http://www.minnpost.com/ericblack/2008/03/07/1104/staffers_detail_climate_of_stress_politicization_in_ags_o
ffice ).
“The office of Attorney General Lori Swanson is riven by fear,
politicization, low morale, intimidation tactics and constant turnover…the
present and recently departed attorneys said the stress, turnover, and fear are
impeding the functioning of the office. They said the office has lost a lot of
institutional memory over the departures. Newly hired attorneys miss the
guidance of veteran lawyers… Jody Wahl, 54 worked as an investigator in the
office for 24 years under three attorneys general. … There’s a lot of pressure to

5
 manipulate the evidence to support what Lori Swanson wants done,” Wahl
said. “The office of attorney general has such tremendous authority. When it
sues somebody, it can ruin their life, ruin their business. It shouldn’t be taken
lightly. It should be done after a thorough investigation. And that isn’t done
anymore. Shouldn’t we cross the T’s and dot the I’s before we call a press
conference and sue someone?”

4D. Former Assistant Attorney General Susan Damon, J.D. reportedly

described the office management practices as dishonest, unethical, and not in the
public’s best interest. “Attorney Damon reported joining the office in 1991 and served as
assistant attorney general in the health-licensing division until last June… Damon says
she quit because she could no longer tolerate administrative practices she describes as
“dishonest, unethical, and not in the public’s best interest.” See, Rosengren, John,
Power of Attorney, Minnesota Monthly, Jan. 2009, Exhibit O,
http://www.minnesotamonthly.com/media/Minnesota-Monthly/January-2009/Power-of-
Attorney/index.php?cparticle=1&siarticle=0#artanc

4E. The Legislative Auditor, James Nobles, concluded that [the AG Office
turmoil and troubles] were not about the union as there are much bigger issues [regarding
turmoil in the staff] here. “The office was so unstable that shortly after Swanson was
elected, some of her staff met to discuss forming a union… to provide more job
security—something that would prevent attorneys from being fired without “cause.”…
Even many not associated with the union effort agree that workplace morale has sunk to
a new low in the last year… It’s really not about the union,” says Jim Nobles, the state’s
legislative auditor. “There are much bigger issues here.” See, Rosengren, John, Power
of Attorney, Minnesota Monthly, Jan. 2009, Exhibit O,
http://www.minnesotamonthly.com/media/Minnesota-Monthly/January-2009/Power-of-
Attorney/index.php?cparticle=1&siarticle=0#artanc

4F. State representative Steve Simon reported accounts from multiple

attorneys in the Office that the AG’s office was offering unsound advice to clients,
inserting unsubstantiated information in affidavits, and finding defendants to justify filing
certain lawsuits, among other things. Simon told the 12- person Legislative Auditing
committee that he had heard complaints from attorneys working under Hatch and
Swanson that they had felt pressured to act unethically. The charges included offering
unsound advice to clients, inserting unsubstantiated information in affidavits, and
finding defendants to justify filing certain lawsuits, among other things. The commission
directed Nobles to conduct a “preliminary assessment” to determine whether the
allegations warranted a broader investigation. ... Nobles issued his report in June. He
stated that his office had interviewed seven people associated with the attorney general’s
office and found that the events related to the allegations had indeed occurred and that
individuals “felt pressured to act inappropriately.”See, Rosengren, John, Power of
Attorney, Minnesota Monthly, Jan. 2009, Exhibit O,
http://www.minnesotamonthly.com/media/Minnesota-Monthly/January-2009/Power-of-
Attorney/index.php?cparticle=1&siarticle=0#artanc

4G. Damages to the state from the extraordinary loss of legal professionals in
the AG’s office: “The greatest cost of the turnover under Swanson isn’t bruised egos or
hurt feelings; it’s the diminished quality of legal representation the attorney general’s
office is able to provide. “Whether it be public utilities or human services or health,
you’ve got a very specific body of law that governs that area, so you really want people

6
 who are experts in those areas of law,” says David Schultz, a professor who teaches law
and business classes at Hamline University in St. Paul. “As attorney general, you want to
recruit people who will stay in your office and who, over a number of years, will develop
expertise in different areas of law, so that the state can write regulations, write
procedures, perform services, and do its job.” The loss of key staff affects, among other
things, the office’s ability to pursue important lawsuits. In 2003, Hatch sued
GlaxoSmithKline, alleging the company was conspiring with other drug manufacturers to
boycott Canadian pharmacies exporting low-cost prescription drugs to the United States.
The case was set for discovery, then trial, but the three lawyers who had handled the case
from the onset left within months of Swanson taking office. Two more attorneys added to
the case also left. In November 2007, Swanson settled the case for nothing, not even
asking for compensation to cover the office’s costs and attorney fees, which were
substantial after four years of litigation. “They dumped the case because there were no
lawyers left who could handle it,” says Paul Civello, (J.D., magna cum laude and Order
of the Coif, Univ, of Minnesota, and Ph.D. from UCLA) a former manager of the
Medicaid-fraud division who was initially assigned to the case and who departed the
office in frustration in 2007. “Needless to say, Swanson did not hold a press conference
to announce this settlement…. It will take years for new hires to replace the lost
institutional memory, specialized skills, and accumulated wisdom of the departing
attorneys, says Civello. “Those who have left include some of the best, brightest, most
dedicated attorneys the attorney general’s office had. They are irreplaceable,” he says.
“No law firm that has suffered the loss of so many talented, experienced lawyers in so
short a time could claim to be well-managed and functioning.”” See, Rosengren, John,
Power of Attorney, Minnesota Monthly, Jan. 2009. Exhibit O,
http://www.minnesotamonthly.com/media/Minnesota-Monthly/January-2009/Power-of-
Attorney/index.php?cparticle=1&siarticle=0#artanc

4D. Dr. Chris Barden’s personal conversations with several former Assistant
Attorneys General in travels throughout Minnesota: During campaign trips throughout
the state, folks came up to me, identified themselves as former AG legal staff and
reported experiences in that office. Many reported positive experiences working under
former Attorneys General Warren Spannaus and Skip Humphrey. The former Assistant
Attorneys General noted that under the Spannaus and Humphrey administrations legal
staffing was very stable over many years and attorneys worked together effectively. They
recalled nobody reporting being forced to file false affidavits during the Spannaus or
Humphrey administrations. They recalled nobody reporting the Attorney General’s office
was defrauding the federal government. They recalled nobody reporting fearing to speak
out during the Spannaus or Humphrey administrations. Uniformly, they reported a
“tragic decline” of the office into the current state of “a political pressure cooker, with
mismanagement, corruption, and illegal activities”. Virtually all of these former
attorneys reported being lifelong Democrats. They also reported they knew staff
attorneys who quit or were fired -- for refusing to engage in misconduct or criminal acts
-- including fabricating (changing facts in) affidavits.

4E. Have requests for relevant records been illegally refused?: Several
sources report that formal requests for the names of all of the attorneys who have worked
at the Attorney General’s Office over the past years have been refused. Why didn’t the
media obtain these lists and follow-up on the story of turmoil and decay in the Office?

5. ACORN-GATE: In the settlement of the Capitol One lawsuit in 2006, documents prove
Swanson signed over $249,999 (of what should have been) taxpayer dollars directly to the

7
notorious group ACORN in what appears to be a political payback “slush fund” payment.
Apparently ACORN, later that year, endorsed Swanson or election. How much, if any, of the
public funds given to ACORN were used to support Swanson’s election campaign?

5A. Letter from Legislator Auditor to Lori Swanson, Attorney General, May
12, 2008 (Exhibit D) : “The Legislative Auditor has received allegations concerning the
consent judgment (settlement) filed by Attorney General Mike Hatch against Capitol
One. The judgement was signed by you, as Solicitor General, … on Feb. 13, 2006, (See
also original document at Exhibit A). It provided for distribution of money… to the
Minnesota Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, ACORN
($249,999). … “.

5B. WHAT AUDITING WAS DONE, IF ANY, TO PROTECT THE

PUBLIC FROM ACORN’s COMMON, UNETHICAL POLITICAL ACTIVITY? :
“What monitoring or other mechanisms did the Attorney General’s Office employ to
ensure that ACORN [spent the money appropriately]” See, Letter from the Legislative
Auditor, May 12, 2008, Exhibit F).

5C. MONEY TIED TO POLITICAL ADVOCACY? : “It is alleged that the

distribution of money to Minnesota ACORN was connected to ACORN’s endorsement of
Mike Hatch for Governor on March 8, 2006 [note the settlement was Feb. 13, 2006 – just
enough time for the check to clear?] Please address the allegation and explain the basis
for the distribution of $249,999 to ACORN, a political advocacy organization. See,
Letter from the Legislative Auditor, May 12, 2008, Exhibit F) [Note that Swanson was
also apparently later endorsed by ACORN and received an “A+” rating from ACORN, an
organization which has apparently been called a “criminal enterprise” by a U.S.
Congressional research group].

5D. WHY DID MINNESOTA HAVE A “SLUSH FUND” LAW THAT

PERMITTED PAYMENTS TO POLITICAL CRONIES SUCH AS ACORN? WHY
WAS THE SLUSH FUND CLOSED IN 2009?: Why did Minnesota have a “slush fund”
law that permitted the Attorney General to dispense Iwhat should have been taxpayer
funds] if the case settled for less than $750,000 (See, Minn Stat. 16A.151, subd. 1(b) and
1(e). The Capitol One settlement for $749,999 maximized the “slush fund” amount.
Why? Why was the money given to a notorious group like ACORN? Why did the
legislature fail to hold hearings on ACORN-gate? Why did the legislature apparently
close the “slush fund” in 2009?

5E. WHY HAS ATTORNEY GENERAL SWANSON REFUSED

INTERVIEWS AND GIVEN NO STATEMENTS UNDER OATH ON THESE
ISSUES?: “The Legislative Audit Commission conducted a meeting on June 30, 2008,
where Noble presented his findings. MinnPost.com reported that Lori Swanson declined
an invitation to appear at the hearing. Hatch didn't show, either, and told the reporter he's
"not talking to [the reporter]." Why didn’t the legislature hold hearings on this
apparently outrageous abuse of the political and legal system? Why haven’t Hatch and
Swanson had to answer questions under oath?

6. MEDICAID DIVISION FRAUD IN THE AG’s OFFICE?: Why did Swanson’s own
Medicaid Fraud Investigation Managing Attorney report that AG Swanson “deceived” the federal
government?

8
 6A Statement of Former Assistant Attorney General Paul Civello, (J.D., magna cum
laude and Order of the Coif, Univ, of Minnesota, and Ph.D. from UCLA)
Attorney Civello, who is widely reported to be one of the most intelligent,
ethical, and best educated lawyers in the office, testified under oath discussing a “wide
range of unethical and unlawful practices [he] witnessed during [his] tenure as an
Assistant Attorney General at the Minnesota Attorney’s Office”. Attorney Civello
reports being appointed by the Attorney General to serve as the Manager of the Medicaid
Fraud Control Unit. We note that Attorney Civello was hired by the Attorney General,
supervised by the Attorney General and promoted by the Attorney General. He clearly
was a considered a fine lawyer indeed – until he reported gross misconduct, negligence,
mismanagement, and apparently criminal fraud in the office. Attorney Civello reported
a “deliberate attempt [by Hatch and Swanson] to deceive the federal oversight authority
in order to misuse Medicaid Fraud Control Unit funds [for other purposes]. He also
reported the misuse of MFCU funds by then-Solicitor General Swanson in the service of
her campaign for Attorney General. Civello quoted a memo from Attorney Deborah
Peterson that documented yet another example of “fraud” in the AG’s office – falsely
hiring attorneys and mis-reporting them as investigators to fraudulently claim
compliance with federal rules then pressuring legal staff to go along with the misconduct.
These themes of fraud, misconduct, and unethical pressure to comply recur in many of
these attorney reports. (See, Exhibit K, Affidavit of Paul Civello, September 29, 2008;
See also, Exhibit L, WCCO iTeam report, 2008, "The problem I found in the Medicaid
Fraud Control Unit was an attempt to deceive the Office of Inspector General (about the
make up of the unit)," said Civello.” Apparently Paul Civello currently works at the
prestigious law firm of Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand in Minneapolis.
We should note that these statements appear to document exactly the kind of
"corrupt conduct" that may constitute an impeachable offense under Article VIII of the
Minnesota Constitution. [NOTE: Mr.Civello’s statements show AG Swanson to be
either A) a potential criminal (if Civello is right) or B) a recklessly poor manager who put
an unreliable person in a management role (if Civello is wrong or stating falsehoods).
Either way, AG Swanson appears incompetent or worse. Given the multiple
corroborating statements documenting the kind of misconduct reported by Attorney
Civello, his statements appear quite credible. ]

7. MULTIPLE, CONSISTENT REPORTS OF PRESSURE TO COMMIT

APPARENTLY CRIMINAL ACTS?: Sworn statements from SEVEN Assistant Attorneys
General of Minnesota document serious misconduct and/or criminal activity in the AG’s office.

7A. SEVEN SWORN STATEMENTS OF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY

GENERALS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Official Minnesota documents show
that seven former or current Assistant Attorneys General of the State of Minnesota have
given sworn statements under oath to the Legislative Auditor. These statements appear
consistently support statements that a number of the attorneys quitting jobs at the
Attorney General’s Office did so as they refused to follow orders and pressure to perform
unethical and/or illegal acts including apparently inserting false, unsubstantiated, or
questionable facts into affidavits. (See, Legislative Auditor report of June 3, 2008,
Exhibit J) Consistent, more detailed reports have been offered by some of the brightest
and best-educated attorneys in the AG’s Office (See, attached Lawler Exhibit C and
Civello, Exh. K reports). These sworn statements and detailed reports from licensed
attorneys -- attorneys who were hired and supervised within the Office of the Attorney
General -- appear to document exactly the kind of "corrupt conduct" in the Office of

9
Attorney General that may constitute an impeachable offense under Article VIII of the
Minnesota Constitution.

7B Corroborating Statement from Former Assistant Attorney General Amy

Lawler, J.D. , a former student body president at Wellesley College and a graduate of the
Harvard Law School, was reportedly one of the most intelligent, ethically sensitive, and
best educated attorneys in the entire Attorney General’s Office. Her report appears quite
consistent with the reports of Paul Civello, Ph.D., J.D. and other attorneys as documented
in sworn statements to the Office of the Legislative Auditor. She reports that “I
understand that at least 52 attorneys have left the office over the course of the last year, in
an office staffed by approximately 126 attorneys. This is a staggering turnover rate…
Many have wanted to speak up, but have been afraid to do so…. My colleagues have left
in droves, and the public suffers from the loss of these skilled and committed attorneys…
[Lawler] reported an attorney being instructed to add apparently false information to
an affidavit (i.e., obstruction of justice?) The attorney refused and later resigned…
[Lawler] reported an attorney being ordered to violate a special master’s order…
[Lawler] reported an attorney refusing an illegal order to issue a civil investigative
demand against a company when the attorney did not have reasonable cause to believe
the company had violated the law. The attorney refused then resigned. [Lawler] reported
“an instance in which a supervisor inserted information into affidavits that was
actually false (obstruction of justice?) ; the assistant attorney general removed these
(false) statements, and was then subjected to retaliation. These reports of unethical and
criminal misconduct appear validated and supported by the investigation by the Office of
the Legislative Auditor. I understand that Amy Lawler currently works as an attorney at
the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. (See, Lawler
Report of March 14, 2008 at Exhibit C ).

Lawler cites her conversations with lawyers in the Office as they document experiences
in the Attorney General's office under Lori Swanson. Complaints include:

-- "being hired with the explicit instruction that the position required loyalty to
Attorney General Swanson, and that those advocating for the union were not
being loyal," [Note the unethical contamination of legal work with political
influence in the office]

-- "being ordered to violate a special master's order," [Note this appears to be

aiding and abetting a contempt of court, cf. Minnesota Statutes 588.20 and
609.05. Such acts are indictable and, if condoned by Attorney General
Swanson, impeachable “corrupt conduct”. See, Article VIII, Section 2,
Minnesota Constitution]

-- "being instructed by a supervisor to add statements to a consumer's affidavit

that the attorney had reason to believe the consumer did not actually say,"
[Note this is aiding and abetting perjury, Cf. Minnesota Statutes 609.05 and

10
 609.48. Such criminal misconduct is clearly both indictable and impeachable] 5

-- "being ordered to issue a civil investigative demand against a company, when

the attorney did not have reasonable cause to believe the company had violated
the law," [which is aiding and abetting criminal misconduct, contrary to Sections
609.05 and 609.43 of Minnesota Statutes This misconduct is both indictable and
impeachable]; 6

-- "being asked by a supervisor to a post in the Minnesota Lawyer blog, during

the work day from office computers, lauding Swanson's administration,"
[unethical misuse of state employees for political purposes]

-- "being order to tell consumers that they were being invited to meet with the
attorney general, being being directed not to tell the consumers that the event was
also a press confereence," [unethical deceit contrary to Rule 8.4 of the Minnesota
Rules of Professional Conduct. ]

-- "being told to give an agency client advice that would not have been in the
client's best interest and was not legally sound," which is probably not a crime or
misdemeanor, but is unethical deceit, contrary to Rule 8.4 of the Minnesota Rules
of Professional Conduct, and, if condoned by Swanson, impeachable corrupt
conduct, contrary to Article VIII, Section 2 of the Minnesota Constitution; and

-- "an instance in which a supervisor inserted information into affidavits that

was actually false," [Note this appears to be an attempted perjury (See,
Sections 609.17 and 609.48 of Minnesota Statutes), acts which appears
indictable, and, if condoned by Attorney General Swanson, would appear to be

5
MN STAT. 609.48 PERJURY. Subdivision 1. Acts constituting. Whoever makes a false material statement
not believing it to be true in any of the following cases is guilty of perjury and may be sentenced as provided in
subdivision 4: (1) in or for an action, hearing or proceeding of any kind in which the statement is required or authorized
by law to be made under oath or affirmation; (2) in any writing which is required or authorized by law to be under oath
or affirmation; (3) in any writing made according to section 358.115; or (4) in any other case in which the penalties for
perjury are imposed by law and no specific sentence is otherwise provided.

6
MN STAT. 609.43 MISCONDUCT OF PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE. A public officer or
employee who does any of the following, for which no other sentence is specifically provided by law, may be
sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both: (1)
intentionally fails or refuses to perform a known mandatory, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty of the office or
employment within the time or in the manner required by law; or (2) in the capacity of such officer or employee, does
an act knowing it is in excess of lawful authority or knowing it is forbidden by law to be done in that capacity; or (3)
under pretense or color of official authority intentionally and unlawfully injures another in the other's person, property,
or rights; or (4) in the capacity of such officer or employee, makes a return, certificate, official report, or other like
document having knowledge it is false in any material respect

11
 impeachable corrupt conduct, contrary to Article VIII, Section 2 of the
Minnesota Constitution] 7

It is essential to note that – in sharp contract to the truncated, largely irrelevant “report”
of Dean Mengler -- who somehow seemed to miss all of the obviously corroborative
testimony available -- Lawler’s reports were corroborated and supported by the sworn
statements of SEVEN attorneys taken in the investigation of the Legislative Auditor
(See, Legislative Auditor’s report of June 3, 2008, at Exhibit J ; Report of Amy Lawler,
J.D. at Exhibit C).

7C. Corroborating Statement of Former Assistant Attorney General Martin

Carlson, J.D, a lawyer who, according to a WCCO iTeam report, worked in the Attorney
General's Consumer Enforcement Office. Attorney Carlson described -- for a WCCO TV
iTeam report -- an atmosphere of intimidation, where he says all employees were asked
to work for the headlines. He also responded to Swanson’s attacks on Civello, "It's a
typical vicious attack that I've become accustomed to seeing from Lori Swanson and
Mike Hatch," according to Martin Carlson, another Assistant Attorney General who
worked in the Consumer Enforcement Office. Carlson describes an atmosphere of
intimidation, where he says all employees were asked to work for the headlines. "The
adage was: Once the publicity's over, the case is over." See, WCCO iTeam , Exhibit. L ).!

7D. Corroborating evidence from Dr. R. Chris Barden’s conversations: In

addition, I have talked to lawyers across the state who reported working in the AG's
office under AGs Spannus, or Humphrey, or Hatch, or Swanson and they reported that
the current office is dysfunctional, ineffective, “dirty”, and “broken”. Most
disturbing, several of the lawyers I spoke to reported being instructed to fabricate
affidavits to provide the basis for a lawsuit to gain publicity for the Office of Attorney
General -- if true these could be criminal acts. Many of the lawyers mentioned
intimidation, threats, and pressure to obey. Many feared retaliation and were afraid to go
public with their experiences. These conversations appear to report the kind of "corrupt
conduct" that may constitute an impeachable offense under Article VIII of the Minnesota
Constitution.

8. A CULTURE OF DISHONESTY: Consistent reports of a "culture of dishonesty";

subordinates they “routinely ask subordinates to do unethical and even unlawful things ";
"every decision based on political considerations"

8A. A former Assistant Attorney General of the State of Minnesota who

reportedly served as a Department Head has been quoted as reporting "I just felt that
these people are unethical and I don't want to work for them anymore." “He said he
told the legislative auditor, under oath, that the ultimate issue was: "This is not about Lori
Swanson's management style. These things are all about a deeper problem. ... First,

!
"" Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 8.4 Misconduct “It is professional misconduct for a
lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do
so, or do so through the acts of another; (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; (e) state or imply an ability
to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of
Professional Conduct or other law…”
"

12
 they've developed a culture of dishonesty. By 'they,' I mean Swanson and Hatch. Number
two, they fairly routinely ask subordinates to do unethical and even unlawful things.
Number three, they tell them to do these things without any regard for the impact on the
attorney or the state. Finally, every decision appears to be made based on political
considerations." [See, Exhibit I, Black, E., MinnPost “They’ll come after you”,
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/05/29/2018/they_will_come_after_you)
If Attorney General Swanson "developed a culture of dishonesty" or "routinely
asked subordinates to do unethical and even unlawful things", or "made legal decisions
based on political considerations" would be exactly the kind of "corrupt conduct" that
should constitute an impeachable offense under Article VIII of the Minnesota
Constitution.8

8B. POLITCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Staffers noticed that Swanson

seemed particularly keen on securing favorable media coverage for her initiatives, and
she continued Hatch’s practice of staging press conferences to showcase lawsuits. (Such
promotion had not been common under his predecessors, Hubert “Skip” Humphrey III
and Warren Spannaus.) Attorneys working on such cases say that once media attention
wanes, however, so does Swanson’s. The lawsuits are often quietly dropped or settled.
There’s a running joke among assistant attorneys general that once the press conference
is over so is the case. “It’s clearly about political gain and press coverage for her—
everything else is irrelevant,” says a former assistant attorney general who left shortly
after Swanson took office but asked to speak anonymously for fear of retaliation.
“You’d work up a case, then they’d tell you to drop it after the press coverage was over.
You had talked to the victims, found a claim, but you couldn’t help them. The sole
concern was getting favorable press coverage.” See, Exhibit O, Rosengren, John, Power
of Attorney, Minnesota Monthly, Jan. 2009. http://www.minnesotamonthly.com/media/Minnesota-
Monthly/January-2009/Power-of-Attorney/index.php?cparticle=1&siarticle=0#artanc

8C. Note that these statements are quite consistent with the other indices of
corruption and misconduct in the Attorney General’s Office cited above.

9. FALSE STATEMENTS TO DECEIVE THE PUBLIC?: The available evidence

indicates that the Attorney General has apparently systematically disseminated false information
in an apparent attempt to manipulate the media and deceive the public regarding her involvement
in a series of scandals.

9A. OFFICE-GATE SCANDAL DECEPTION:

9A1. WCCO: SWANSON APPARENTLY FALSELY CLAIMED

THAT LOSING HALF OF HER LEGAL STAFF WAS NORMAL
ATTRITION: The WCCO iTeam report on office chaos and mass turnover in
the legal staff led to this response from Attorney General Swanson, “Swanson's
office said that's comparable to past attorneys general”. (See, WCCO iTeam
report, Exhibit L ) Multiple sources of information indicate that Swanson’s
response –- a apparent violation of MRPC 8.04 -- was false, deceptive, and
designed to manipulate the media and public. For example, the detailed
investigation of Eric Black, published in MinnPost.com on May 28,
2008, includes these statements, “Former Attorney General Warren Spannaus …
rejects the idea that new AGs get rid of a lot of people. He is the last AG to take

13
 over from a member of the other party, and he recalls allowing everyone to
stay… Several attorneys who were in the office under Hatch's predecessor,
Hubert H. "Skip" Humphrey III, say they don't recall any purges when
Humphrey took over, or during his long tenure.." In my interviews across the
state, I met many attorneys who reported working in the AG’s office and they
uniformly reported that turnover was quite low in the Spannaus and also
Humphrey eras and is now recklessly high in the Swanson era.

9A2. MINNESOTA MONTHLY: AGAIN SWANSON

APPARENTLY FALSELY CLAIMED LOSING HALF THE STAFF WAS
NORMAL ATTRITION: “Attorney Damon is one of approximately 60 lawyers
who have left the attorney general’s office since Swanson took charge. (The
office employs more than 150 attorneys, including a management team of
Swanson, a solicitor general, and four to five deputies.)The numbers have
attracted notice at the capitol and elsewhere, but Swanson says such turnover is
simply a changing-of-the guard, typical of any political transition. See, Exhibit
O Rosengren, John, Power of Attorney, Minnesota Monthly, Jan. 2009.
http://www.minnesotamonthly.com/media/Minnesota-Monthly/January-2009/Power-of-
Attorney/index.php?cparticle=1&siarticle=0#artanc

9B. ACORNGATE SCANDAL DECEPTION: Contrary to her public

statements of non-involvement in this issue, Attorney General Swanson personally
signed the "slush fund payment of $249,999 to the notorious organization ACORN (See,
Exhibit A. Despite her very personal involvement in the payment, Swanson apparently
misled Mpls. Star Tribune reporter Pat Doyle into believing she was not involved in the
matter. [See, http://www.startribune.com/politics/79138497.html?page=2&c=y. Doyle,
P. Continued: Hot Dish, December 12, 2009 "[Jack] Graham, who seeks GOP
endorsement, says Attorney General Lori Swanson, a DFLer, has abused her power. He
cited a settlement signed by Swanson that gave proceeds to a nonprofit whose political
wing contributed to the campaign of her DFL predecessor, Mike Hatch. Swanson's
office noted the settlement occurred while Hatch was attorney general.] Note the
apparent manipulative deception in blaming the ACORN payment on Hatch when, in
fact, Swanson herself signed the actual settlement document. Swanson has also
apparently refused – for years -- to answer questions about her actual involvement in the
ACORN “slush fund” payment.

9C. MISREPRESENTING THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR’s REPORT:

Attorney General Swanson has repeatedly claimed that the Legislative Auditor
“cleared” her of any wrongdoing. Such statements appear to be a deceptive attempt to
manipulate the news media and the public. In contrast, Legislative Auditor Nobles June
3, 2008 report clearly delineates issues regarding loss of funds (cleared) and
ethics/misconduct allegations (very definitely not cleared). Nobles stated, “the
allegations [of unethical misconduct] presented by Representative Simon are not the
kinds of issues the Legislative Auditor addresses through an investigation. “ See,
Exhibit J- June 3, 2008 Legislator Auditor James Nobles 2nd report (7 attorneys under
oath document corruption including potentially criminal misconduct in the Attorney
General’s Office).

Her false statements about being “cleared” by the Auditor appear to have
manipulated the media into publishing false information. For example, in a Star Tribune

14
article, Pat Doyle reported, "Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles said Tuesday there is no
reason to conduct an in-depth investigation of allegations about the office of Minnesota
Attorney General Lori Swanson because a preliminary probe did not disclose unethical
conduct." See, http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/19511174.html, Doyle, Pat , No
reason for further probe of AG's office, legislative auditor says, Mpls Star Tribune, June
4, 2008 [Note the odd failure to distinguish financial issues from ethical issues.]
Note this media report is clearly misleading because Auditor Noble's report did
in fact document -- via seven sworn statements from Asst. Attorneys General of the
State of Minnesota -- serious unethical misconduct in the Office including pressure to
commit apparently unethical and/or criminal acts. Mr Nobles’ investigation was only
closed because no money was lost. Lost money is all Mr. Nobles, the Legislative auditor,
is able to investigate. Money losses are all his office has the expertise or competence to
investigate. Nonetheless his report clearly and carefully documented very significant
evidence of unethical misconduct in the Office of Attorney General.
KEY POINT: The public was misled into believing the Legislative Auditor’s
report “cleared” the AG of ethics charges when A) the Auditor could not do this (he is
incompetent to render such opinions) and B) did not do this (he expressly stated he does
not investigate such issues). This misinformation has harmed our state.

9D DID DEAN THOMAS MENGLER CONDUCT A MANIPULATED

INVESTIGATION AND PRODUCE AN INCOMPLETE AND MISLEADING
REPORT? :

The most critical and important component of Dean Thomas Mengler’s report
regarding Amy Lawler’s whistleblowing activities states… “ my investigation has been
limited in scope. I was not charged to investigate, and I offer no opinion on, more
sweeping allegations about the Office.. [dealing with] the management and ethical
character and integrity of the Office”…

KEY POINT: In other words, it appears that Swanson hired an Ethics expert and
then explicitly barred him from offering ethics opinions about Swanson’s office. Was
this an admission that her office could pass an ethics exam? This apparent manipulation
of evidence appears consistent with the quotes by many former attorneys. See, Exhibit
G, May 27, 2008, Mengler, Thomas M., Report “Regarding Allegations of Professional
Misconduct Raised by Assistant Attorney General Amy Lawler”.

In contrast to this extraordinary restriction on Dean Mengler’s report (he was not
allowed to evaluate Swanson’s office) – a restriction that renders his report essentially
worthless – the media was apparently manipulated into reporting a very different story.
See, http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/19511174.html, Doyle, Pat No reason for
further probe of AG's office, legislative auditor says, Mpls Star Tribune, June 4, 2008
"Last week, in another report, University of St. Thomas Law School dean Thomas
Mengler said he found "no evidence of any unprofessional conduct" by Swanson or her
staff in the filing of two lawsuits that he checked. His report said other charges by Lawler
were based on hearsay and could not be corroborated."

Note this media report appears incomplete and misleading as – in direct contrast
to Dean Mengler’s truncated work -- Attorney Amy Lawler’s reports of unethical
misconduct were, in fact, very well corroborated via seven sworn statements from
multiple Assistant Attorneys General witnesses to the Legislative Auditor documenting
office pressure to commit unethical and even criminal acts. Mengler's "report"

15
claiming “no corroboration” was released just days before the Legislative Auditor’s much
more detailed work and thus became irrelevant and misleading the moment the
Legislative Auditor produced seven corroborating statements under oath for Attorney
Amy Lawler's reports of misconduct. Dean Mengler’s failure to come forward and
renounce his erroneous report after it was clear he was in error is frankly troubling.

9E. Were local correspondents manipulated into producing erroneous news

articles? See, MIKE KASZUBA, May 28: Cleared by a review, AG fires accuser, Star
Tribune, June 3, 2008
"Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson fired a staff attorney Tuesday after
an investigation ordered by Swanson said that the attorney's charges of unprofessional
conduct in the filing of two lawsuits were unfounded."

Was the misleading, incomplete report from Dean Mengler commissioned by

Swanson because the Attorney General's Office knew that Mr. Nobles, the legislative
auditor, was interviewing attorneys and would soon acquire sworn testimony from
multiple witnesses (7) under oath corroborating Assistant Attorney General Amy
Lawler's detailed allegations of misconduct.

"Swanson dismissed Amy Lawler after the results of the investigation by Thomas
Mengler, dean of the University of St. Thomas Law School, were released. ... The report
said other charges by Lawler were based on hearsay and could not be corroborated.”
In fact and in stark contrast, the Legislator Auditor found seven lawyer witnesses
who corroborated Lawler's accusations under oath. Note this Star Tribune article was
apparently printed the SAME DAY the Legislative Auditor sent out his report
documenting multiple corroborative witnesses. Was this timed to manipulate the story
and

"Mengler said Swanson did not ask him to address broader concerns raised by
Lawler on office morale and attempts by staff attorneys in the attorney general's office to
form a union, efforts in which Lawler participated. Mengler wrote he was NOT to
review the "management and ethical character and integrity of the Office". 9
The most important allegations were the very ones Swanson prevented Dean
Mengler from investigating. Thus Mengler, the expert on ethics, was explicitly blocked
by Swanson from analyzing evidence of unethical and criminal conduct in Swanson’s
office. This extraordinary limitation on Mengler’s report – which appears to be a
confession of misconduct in that office -- was somehow not highlighted by the local
media.
It appears on this record that Swanson knew her office was a dysfunctional and
unethical working environment so she hired an ethics expert to smear the whistleblower
then instructed her hired ethics expert NOT to review her troubled office.

“Mengler's 19-page report comes as the legislative auditor is conducting a

separate probe into the attorney general's office. Lawler's charges had heightened
controversy facing Swanson, who assumed office last year and has drawn criticism over
her management style. Lawler did not return phone messages Tuesday. Swanson
released a statement saying that news coverage of Lawler's allegations earlier this year
"ignored the fact that with only 90 days experience in the office, the attorney was in a
questionable position to judge the procedures utilized by the office."

16
 Note the quote from a prepared press release from Swanson's office was printed
without an actual interview of Swanson in person. Apparently not one tough question was
asked. None of the conflicting facts were examined. Nobody noticed the SEVEN attorney
sworn statements corroborating Lawler’s allegations. Clearly, the public was not
informed of the key facts.

“Unflattering picture. Lawler, who began working in Swanson's office late last
year, had created an unflattering profile of the office by voicing concern that, although
the two lawsuits against the mortgage foreclosure consultants had merit, they might have
been part of an effort to gain publicity for Swanson on consumer-protection cases.
Lawler also alleged that, in other instances, supervisors pressured attorneys to falsify
information in a consumer's affidavit, pushed a staff attorney to take action against a
company without reasonable cause and tried to get an attorney to provide unsound legal
advice to a state agency.” …“But Mengler's report said that Lawler had firsthand
knowledge only of the episode involving the lawsuits and that she said she learned of the
others by "listening to other current and former office attorneys telling stories over
drinks at bars." [Note in light of the Legislative Auditor’s report, Mengler’s report
appears misleading or worse.]

Note that the Legislative Auditor was able to obtain SEVEN sworn statements
corroborating Amy Lawler’s observations of the AG’s Office. Why couldn’t Dean
Mengler? Note that the local media apparently never followed up with an article
correcting the misleading information in this article. That is, readers were apparently not
informed that Lawler's allegations – including apparently impeachable offenses, were –in
stark contrast to Dean Mengler’s – sharply limited and incomplete report -- very well
documented and corroborated by multiple witnesses and under oath during the
investigation by Legislative Auditor Nobles (See, June 3, 2008 report at Exhibit J ). “

Questions for the incumbent Attorney General of Minnesota:

1) Why are you apparently the only Attorney General in the history of the State of
Minnesota to have so many sworn statements of allegations of gross misconduct against you and
your Office -- even allegations of criminal conduct – by lawyers from your own staff?

2) Why are you apparently the only Attorney General in the history of the State of
Minnesota to have nearly half of your legal staff quit and leave the office or be fired during your
time in office as Attorney General? Why have you refused to disclose the names of lawyers who
have worked in and left your Office?

3) Why did you sign the transfer of $249,999 Minnesota taxpayer dollars to the
notorious group ACORN? What steps, if any, did you take to ensure that those funds were not
illegally used to support your political campaign? Why are you apparently the only Attorney
General in the history of the State of Minnesota to sign over taxpayer funds to an organization
called “a criminal enterprise” by Congressional investigators? When will the forensic audit of
this transaction be started and completed?

4) When will you answer questions – under oath – regarding these very serious
matters?

17
YouTube - Barden4AG's Channel#p/a/f/0/gd_j1UnRD1g Page 1 of 2

Browse Upload

http://www.youtube.com/user/Barden4AG 10/20/2010
YouTube - Barden4AG's Channel#p/a/f/0/gd_j1UnRD1g Page 2 of 2

Barden4AG Subscriptions (5)

Add as Friend |
Block User | Send Message

Andersonf... RogueOnMi... dansevers... EmmerForG...

Profile
Name: Chris Barden Subscribers (7)
Channel Views: 1,075
Total Upload Views: 627
Joined: July 29, 2010
Last Visit Date: 1 week ago heidiqtmn Sharon4An... datasuppl... ProdigalS...

Website: http://www.barden4ag.com/

I am running as the Republican endorsed

candidate for Attorney General for the great State
of Minnesota.
Channel Comments
About Me: There are no comments for

Raised in Minnesota, I have loved our great state Add Comment

through middle school, high school, undergrad and
graduate school at the U of M, public service and
law practice. Please see my website at
www.barden4ag.com to learn much more!

Hometown: Edina Minnesota

Country: United States
Occupation: Doctor and Lawyer
Schools: Edina High School - University of
Minnesota - Harvard Law School

http://www.youtube.com/user/Barden4AG 10/20/2010
 Page 1 of 1

October 20, 2010

RE: FINAL VERSION Barden investigative report and cover letter on AG Office
misconduct -- update of Oct. 20, 2010
Greetings all,
The press conference is completed. We'll see if they publish our investigation results
or continue to suppress the story.
I am attaching the most recent version of my cover letter and report on Swanson
misconduct. The video will be on our YouTube link tomorrow. The docs and video will
go out to FOX NEWS, WSJ, Tea Parties throughout MN, and multiple bloggers
tomorrow. The cover letter links MN corruption, ACORN, the 2008 election and
Congressman Issa's upcoming federal investigation of our troubled state election
system.
Thank you
Chris Barden

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 AOL: Sharon4Anderson