May 28, 2021 20-8413

IN THE 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

MICHAEL T BROOKS 

Petitioner 

I Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED 

AUS 2 8 2020

vs 

- OFF/CE OF THE CLERK

US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CASE #19-71240 

Brooks v US DOL Review Board #2017-0033 

US DOLADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD CASE #2017-0033 

BROOKS v Agate Health Care, appealing 

US DOL, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE #2016-SOX-00037 

Brooks v Agate Resources 

Respondents 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

Michael T Brooks 

32713 Vintage Way 

Coburg, Oregon 97408 

541-556-6130

Page i of xii 

1 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 1 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 1 of 49
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Table of Contents -----------------------11 

Questions Presented m 

List of Parties VI 

Related Cases vn 

Inedex to Appendixes vm 

Table of Authorities Cited VIV 

Statutes & Rules IX 

Opinions Below 1 

Jurisdiction 1 

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved 2 

Statement of the Case 2 

A. In Forma Paueris, APCP 24 AND Motion To Appoint Counsel 3 

B. ADA, AD AAA, Rehabilitation Act Violations 3 

C. Corporate Structure of Centene and Agate 9 

D. Continuing Harassment by Agate &Oregon, Employment Department 12 

E. Current Retaliation By Centene, Prescription Drugs, Testing 13 

F. 2017 Retaliation By Centene, Testing, Surgeries, Physical Therapy 15 

G. Origin of ALJ Cases - Berlin and Larson; original BOU/OSHA Filing 17 

H. Origin of ALJ Cases - Berlin and Larson; original BOU/OSHA Filing 18 

I. ALJ Confused By Stoel Rives and Brooks Proof of Filing 22 

J. Stoel Rives and Donna Brown; Criminal Violations 33 

K. Jeffrey Wertkin 33 

L. Reasons For Granting The Petition 34 

M. Conclusion 35 

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 

PRIMARY 

1. May an Appellate Court ignore the statutory requirements of FRAP 24? Petitioner, Michael

T. Brooks, had been granted in forma pauperis status at the District Court level (6:15-

cv-0098, docket #5) and that was still operable. It had never been challenged nor rescinded

under 28 USC §1915(a3).

2. Are the federal Article 3 Courts subject to Congressional statutes and international treaties to

which the United States is signatory? The ADA, ADAAA, Rehabilitation Act plainly state

that any agency receiving federal money is subject to the requirements of those acts.

3. May the Administrative Courts ignore Congressional statutes with regards to whistleblower

claims? The Administrative Courts had contact with and conversations with the Seattle

OSHA offices and its administrators. This violates statutory requirements separating and

Page ii of xii 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 2 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 2 of 49
prohibiting such communications between the ARB and ALJ and US DOL. Yet, in FOIA 

filings we find that Seattle OSHA did communicate with the ALJ's, communicated with 

Stoel Rives, and never held a required investigation of Brooks' OSHA Act claims. 

4. Under what circumstances may a court deny assistance to a disabled and impoverished

litigant? Brooks showed, as required by the Appellate Court, that he could not afford medical

and legal expenses on Social Security. Brooks requested the appointment of counsel because

he was passing out, experiencing heart attacks, was hospitalized for increasingly worsening

paralysis, was hospitalized for a brain infection and injuries that resulted in multiple

sclerosis.

5. There is no rhyme nor reason to govern employers moving an employees jobs from

"Exempt" to "Nonexempt". Nonexempt employees are paid for overtime. Exempt employees

are not paid for overtime and can, and are, assigned long hours. Theoretically, "exempt"

workers are salaried professionals that oversee other employees. Brooks was hired as a

"Nonexempt" employee, the Data Warehouse Administrator. Brooks did not oversee anyone

and certainly was not management. Agate simply changed his job to "exempt" so they could

harass him into quitting by working him to work inhuman hours at two jobs; as a janitor,

whenever MS. Korjenek felt like it, and as a database administrator and programmer. If

federal law permits this, you have a huge problem. At the very least, complaints of

harassment by Brooks to Seattle OSHA, Oregon OSHA, US DOL Wage and Hour Division,

and Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries [BOLI] ended with Brooks being told that they

would do nothing and could do nothing. It seems to me this violated the ADA and the Civil

Rights Act.

SECONDARY 

6. Does the State of Oregon have sovereign immunity to deny Oregon resident legal rights

granted by the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution? Specifically, can Oregon

deny Petitioner Michael T. Brooks, and other Oregon residents redress under

• the Civil Rights Act?

Oregon claims sole jurisdiction over civil rights cases and immunity.from federal law ... 

Under 42 USC§ 2000d(4) - (7) ..... arises from or relates to the OHP Contract shall be 

brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court o{Marion County 

for the State of Oregon: provided, however, ifa claim must be brought in a federal forum. 

then it shall be conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court of 

the District of Oregon. In no event shall this paragraph 19 be construed as a waiver of 

the State of Oregon of the jurisdiction of any court or of any form of defense to or 

immunity.from any claim whether sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, immunity 

based on the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the Unites States" [Oregon DOJ 

OHP Contracts, in the section "Governing Law, Consent to Jurisdiction"} 

• the ADA, ADAAA, Rehabilitation Act?

• the whistleblower statutes enacted by congress?

Oregon OSHA: "Federal OSHA doesn't have jurisdiction in Oregon .... We are a State 

Plan state. So we manage our own state plan, our own OSHA regulations and Bureau of 

Labor and Industries for Oregon handles the whistleblower worker retaliation claims. 

Page iii of xii 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 3 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 3 of 49
Thats the way it works in Oregon. ... OSHA doesn't have any jurisdiction here unless 

you 're on a reservation or a controlled military base or something of that nature ... And, 

if you called the Federal Labor and Industries people (US Department o_f Labor), they 

can't do anything. You would have needed to call ... BOLJ, 971-673-0764 [from a

recorded telephone call with Oregon OSHA Administration; one of four similar 

recordings]. [Exhibit 1] 

Federal OSH A seem to have agreed with Oregon and would deny whistleblowers access 

to.federal protection. In the case of the Seattle regional office, every single whistle blower 

case brought against Oregon or Oregon contractors has been dismissed. ln fact;.federal 

employees at that office work with and communicate with Oregon lawyers and ODO.! 

Assistant Attorney Generals. 

• HIPAA Privacy Act Protections of Patients?

This was asserted to Brooks by an Assistant AG at the Oregon Department o_f Justice 

when Brooks reported the sale of employee and.

family medical, counseling, psychiatric, 

prescription drug, and laboratory records by Oregon Health Plan contractor Agate 

Resources in Oregon and 32 other states. Oregon claims exemptions from the federal 

statute. 

7. May the Courts and Administrative law judges disregard writings, declarations and evidence

presented by Pro Se litigants and take that of attorneys instead?

8. May the State of Oregon and its Oregon Health Plan contractors abrogate treaties signed and

ratified by the United States? In violation of this Court's ruling in 9 W. Hening, Statutes of

Virginia 377-380, 1821

• Agents of the Oregon Health Authority (OHA), a State of Oregon agency and acting as

state representatives of Oregon and acting under cover of state law DID VIOL ATE the

Fourth Geneva Convention, Section 3 - "outrages upon the personal dignity, [and] in

particular were humiliating and degrading". OHA SOLD to Agate Resources medical and

counseling 

Agate Resources. 

records 

in 

o[(oreign 

turn, sold 

college 

those record,; 

students. 

to information 

some of them 

warehouses. 

the children 

employers 

o�

and

agents olforeign governments. Oregon involved the United States in violations of the

Geneva Accords and Treaties - "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights",

"Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment", the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against

Internationally Protected Persons", the "Conventions on the Rights of Children", all of

which the United States has ratified.

• And "degradation" and "humiliation ".fits the sale o a

is an objection by Agate Resource s counsel and the Oregon District Court to hide this from

the US Congress, the US State Department, the consular offices of the governments of these

students, and this US Supreme Court.

• Oregon s sale of patient records also violate Hf PA A Privacy Act and other US laws, and

UN Treaties "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights", "Convention against

Page iv of xii 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 4 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 4 of 49
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment", the 

"Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally 

Protected Persons", the Conventions on the Rights of Children, all of which the United 

States has ratified. 

• In addition, the Oregon Health Authority collected and sold medical, counseling,

psychiatric, laboratory, and prescription drug records of patients at the Oregon State

(Psychiatric) Hospital. These were sent monthly to Agate Resources in a zipped.file format;

containing the name of the OHA researcher who assembled those reports and other

forensic evidence proving it could only come.from OHA.

9. Under what circumstances may a District Court Judge prohibit a citizen of the United States

from informing his elected representatives, other US Courts and the International Courts and

governments of victims of criminal acts by a state government and its contractors? May a

District Court Judge issue a sweeping "protective order" [Exhibit 3] that precludes a

whistle blower from obeying statutory law? That order precludes informing this Court or the

US government about tax fraud by Centene, Agate Resources, LIPA, and its executives. The

Byzantine corporate structure allows them to jump from state to state to state, employer to

employer, on a legal whim. There is, in reality, nothing but Centene. All of its subsidiary's

employees are just Centene employees, "leased" to a paper subsidiary with no facility, no

equipment, no management, no resources.

The District Court violated federal law when it did not notify US HHS of the 

records it was covering in its gag order and did not notify the IRS of tax and securities 

fraud. Stoel Rives contention that the public has no interest in knowing if Agate and 

Centene, the outfit handling.their health care, are crooks is disingenuous at best. Agate 

has literally killed patients in order to reward executives with bonuses. Agate and 

Centene lied to the US government about the number of outstanding shares and the 

amount of money paid when Agate Resources was sold to Centene in 2015. And, Oregon 

and Agate broke several laws when they blocked out whole sections of the document 

governing the merger of Agate and Centene of January 25, 2015: "Agreement and Plan of 

Merger By and Among Centene Corporation, Prefontaine Sub, Inc., Agate Resources, 

Inc. and James Dalton, as the Stockholder Representative". 

James Dalton is the former Senior VP at Tektronix, where Brooks worked as a 

Tektronix Fellow. Mr. Dalton did not own any shares in Agate Resources. Agate 

Resources, though, had far more shares and money than were revealed to the IRS and 

state government. As of August 31, 2013, there were 103,202 shares worth 

$201,243,900. On top of that, there was $131 million in the reserve fund account. The 

IRS reports had Terry Coplin receiving $5.7 million. He would have gotten $10.6 million 

as of August 2013, but he was engaged in sider trading, buying shares from employees 

and doctors that did not know about the impending sale to Centene and would have had 

at least $15 million from shares alone and another $10 million from the reserve fund 

"sale" to Centene. How much did he pay in federal taxes? And, here are more whose 

payouts do not match the records Brooks has: 

Page v of xii 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 5 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 5 of 49
• Terry Coplin, Agate CEO: $5.7 million (3,118 shares)

• Dr. Richard Finkelstein, Eugene anesthesiologist, Agate board director: $5.3 million (2,927

shares)

• David Cole, Agate chief financial officer: $4.2 million (2,298 shares)

• Dr. Leo Cytrynbaum, Springfield internal medicine doctor, Agate board director: $4 million

(for 2,183 shares)

• Dr. Thomas Wuest, chief medical officer Centene; Agate and Trillium president and board

director: $3 .1 million ( for 1,691 shares)

• Jim Torrey, former Eugene mayor, Agate board director: $2.5 million (for 1,364 shares)

• Shannon Conley, Agate chief administrative officer: $2.1 million ( for 1,185 shares)

• Dr. Tod Hayes, Eugene emergency medicine doctor; Agate vice president, board director:

$1.9 million (for 1,058 shares)

• Patrice Korjenek, Agate chief operations officer: $1.5 million (for 800 shares)

• Jordan Pape, businessman, president of Eugene-based Pape Group; Agate board director:

$1.4 million (for 750 shares)

• Dr. Mark Meyers, Springfield family practitioner, Agate board director: $1.3 million (for 723

shares)

• Dr. Melissa Edwards, Eugene gynecologist, Agate board director: $840,000 (for 460 shares)

• Dr. Daniel Hutton, Springfield spinal surgeon, Agate board director: $550,000 (for 300

shares)

Brooks has the actual records and the shareholder records, and has those reported 

to him by Agate employees following his termination, show far more money paid to 

these executives and insiders than is being reported. And, some of what Stoel Rives is 

desperately trying to have destroyed are those records. Those records prove tax fraud. 

The reported shares were reported to have netted $109 million, which is a long ways off 

from $201 million that the actual records show. Brooks has the database shareholder 

records and Oregon and the US are looking at $92 million in shareholder fraud and $131 

million (plus) for the sale of "reserve funds". And those reserve funds were simply 

patient medical expenses that Agate did not pay out to vendors for services. Oregon 

permits its OHP contractors to keep those reserve funds if they are not spent. This is why 

you see comments from patients like: 

'This explains why Trillium will not pay out $50 for compression socks, 

much less replacing my $3800 leg braces" [letter to the editor, Eugene 

Register-Guard, 2014] 

and why a local doctor told the Register Guard: 

"You might expect (this kind of behavior) from the business people -

Pape and Torrey - but not from doctors who gave an oath to first do no 

harm. If you're going to screw over a population and not have any 

consequences, (Oregon Health Plan patients are) a perfect population. 

They have no power. This is not a group that are going to hire an attorney 

and file a class-action suit." 

Page vi of xii 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 6 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 6 of 49
LIST OF PARTIES 

All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all possible parties 

to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition is as follows. 

US DOL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD CASE #2019-0078 

US DOL, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE #2018-SOX-00046 

Judge Christopher Larsen 

Office of Administrative Law Judges 

90 Seventh Street, Suite 4-800 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Oregon District Court 6:15-cv-00983-TC/JR/MK/A 

Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin 

Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo 

Magistrate Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai 

District Judge Ann L. Aiken 

US District Court, District of Oregon 

Eugene Division 

405 East Eighth Avenue 

Eugene, Oregon 97401 

Carolyn D. Walker 

Ryan Gibson 

Reilley D. Keating 

Stephan H. Galloway 

Rachel C. Lee 

Brianne L. Bridegum 

Bradley F. Tellam 

Brenda K. Baumgart 

Attorney's For Agate Resources (in reality Centene Corporation) 

Stoel Rives, LLP 

760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000 

Portland, Oregon 97205-2584 

RELATED CASES 

Page vii of xii 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 7 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 7 of 49
US Supreme Court, Docket for 16-6236; Michael T Brooks v Employment Department, et 

al; September 2016. The caption for this is the Unemployment Departments but it should be 

Agate Resources and the State of Oregon. The issues and incidents raised are ongoing 

US Supreme Court, Writ of Certiorari- from Ninth Circuit Court, 19-35547, no case number 

assigned as of yet 

US Supreme Court, 20M-82 (referring to the above cited Writ of Certiorari) 

Motion by Respondents to seal mention of the fact that Respondents sold medical and psychiatric 

and counseling records for foreign students from China, Russian, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. This 

request would broaden HIPAA beyond Congress's statue and violate HIPAA's"Uses and 

disclosures" - the public's right to know is guaranteed in Section 5 and treaty obligations of the 

"United Nations Conventions on the Rights of Children" to which the United States is signatory. 

Lincoln v. BNSF Ry. Co. (10th Cir. 2018); failure of agency to file EEOC complaint 

Lane v Franks; 13-483, April 28, 2014 

Julia Davis v. Department of Homeland Security 

Fabula v. American Medical Response, Inc 

United States of America vs. Lindberg, Gray, Palermo, Hayes; 5: 19-cr-22-FDW 

Sewell v Freedom Health, et al; 8:2009cv01625 (2017) 

Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) 

Leary v Centene Corporation; 14-CV-2547 

M.D. et al v Centene Corporation et al; 1:18-cv-22372 

Dual Diagnosis Treatment Center, Inc. et al v. Centene Corporation et al; 2:2020cv04112 

https://www.contractormisconduct.org/ contractors/ 67 /heal th-net-inc 

20 lawsuits against HealthNet (This is actually Centene dba Trillium Community Health Plan in 

Oregon and North California) 

"Centene sued over lack of medical coverage" in 15 states; New York Times 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01 /11 /health/centene-health-insurance-lawsuit.html 

"5 Ways Insurance Companies Meddle in Your Health Care", US News and World Report, July 

13, 2017 

Page viii of xii 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 8 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 8 of 49
INDEX TO APPENDICES 

APPENDIX C ... US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CASE #19-71240 

Brooks v US DOL Review Board #2017-0033 

appealing 

APPENDIX D ... us DOLADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD CASE #2017-0033 

BROOKS v Agate Health Care 

appealing 

APPENDIX E ... US DOL, Administrative Law Case #2016-SOX-00037 

Brooks v Agate Resources 

' 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED 

-CASES

In City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) the equal protection class of persons with 

disabilities fall into depends upon the facts and circumstances of the individual case. The 

Supreme Court held that there are three factors governing these cases: 1) The constitutional 

right(s) Congress sought to enforce in enacting the ADA; 2) whether there is a history of 

unconstitutional discrimination to support Congress's determination that prophylactic legislation 

was necessary; and 3) whether title II of the ADA was an appropriate response to that history and 

pattern of unequal treatment. 

Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt 

The Supreme Court likes to take cases where one District Court disagrees with another District 

Court. Here you have a case where the District Court and Appellate Court disagrees with the US 

Supreme Court and refuses to abide by your decision. 

Roell et al. v. Withrow, No. 02-69 (2003); Rule 73 

Turner v. Rogers, No. 10-10 (2011) 

Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319,335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) 

- due process

**when incarceration is threatened, but what about character, ability to work, life?

Ingraham v. Wright 

Wisconsin v. Constantineau 

-Due Process

EEOC, Retaliation 

Murchison 349 U.S. 133 (1955) 

Page ix of xii 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 9 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 9 of 49
Marshall v. Jerrico, 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980) 

Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 195 (1982) 

Rendell- Baker v. Kohn (1982) 

Mathews v. Eldridge 424 U.S. 319 (1976) 

Lawson v. FMR LLC 571 U.S._ (2014) 

- Public Corruption, State Actors

STATUTES AND RULES 

FY 2013 EEOC/FEPA Model Work Sharing Agreement 

Section 15( d) and 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended 

Exchange Act, Form 15 (share values exceeded $10 million) 

Civil Rights Act, both Title Vi and Title II 

Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-259)C clarifies the intent of Congress as it 

relates to the scope of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 USC § 794) 

Refusal by the federal courts to grant required accommodations and stays or extensions of 

time during and while convalescing from surgery all violate 29 UCS 794 

Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ( 42 USC § 18116 - PDF), 

which provides that an individual shall not be excluded from participation in, be denied the 

benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination on the grounds prohibited under Title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC § 2000d et seg. - PDF (race, color, national origin), Title IX of 

the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 USC § 1681 et seg. - PDF (sex), the Age Discrimination 

Act of 1975, 42 USC § 6101 et seg. (age), or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 

USC§ 794 - PDF (disability), under any program or activity, any part of which is receiving 

Federal financial assistance, or under any program or activity ... 

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully 

deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, 

state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that 

official's lawful authority. Furthermore, those officials "shall be fined under this title or 

imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed 

in violation of this section". The fines and imprisonment increase to ten years in cases involving 

bodily injury. 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (42 USC§ 12101 et seq., Title II at 28 CFR 

35) . Books notes that when the federal courts tried to narrow the scope of this, the Congress

Page x of xii 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 10 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 10 of 49
broadened this in 2008 with Pub. L. 110-325 effective Jan. 1, 2009. In Pub. L. 110-325, §2, 

Sept. 25, 2008, 122 Stat. 3553, explicitly broadened the scope of the ADA. Congresses intent 

was to apply that law to states and all federal agencies, including the federal courts. Brooks 

notes, even though the federal courts seem to forget this fact, that Congress created the federal 

courts under Article 3 of the Constitution Congress, if it so wished, terminate those Article 3 

courts. 

Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act of 2008 (AD AAA) (P.L. 110-325, 42 USC § 

12101 et seq. at 28 CFR 35) 

45 CF 92.101 - Discrimination prohibited - " ... shall not, on the basis ofrace, color, national 

origin, sex, age, or disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or 

otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any health program or activity to which this part 

applies 

45 CFR 611.3 - " ... may not directly or through contractual or other arrangements, on the ground 

of race, color, or national origin 

45 CFR 125 - Prohibition On Discrimination - may not discriminate based on an individuals 

age, expected length of life, present or predicted disability, degree of medical dependency, 

quality of life, or other health conditions. 

45 CFR 200 - Health Plan Standards 

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 

FRAP 24 - Proceeding in Forma Pauperis 

(3) Prior Approval. A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court

action. or who was determined to be financially unable to obtain an adequate defense in a

criminal case, may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization, unless:

(A) the District Court-before or after the notice of appeal is filed certifies that the appeal is

not taken in good faith or finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma

pauper is and states in writing its reasons for the certification or finding

28 USC §1915 - Proceedings in forma pauperis 

Whistleblower Statutes: 

45 CFR §160.316 - Refraining from intimidation or retaliation for opposing HIPAA violations 

29 USC Section 1558, PL 111-148-Ajfordable Care Act, Protection for whistleblowers 

29 USC §21 BC, Affordable Care Act, Protection for employees opposing discrimination in 

health care 

12 USCA. 5567-Dodd Frank, employee protection 

(4) objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, practice, or assigned

task that the employee (or other such person) reasonably believed to be in violation of

Page xi of xii 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 11 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 11 of 49
any law, rule, order, standard, or prohibition, subject to the jurisdiction of, or 

eriforceable by, the Bureau. 

18 USC §1514A -Sarbanes Oxley, Civil action to protect against retaliation in.fraud cases 

Criminal Statutes 

Section 1107 Sarbanes Oxley (18 USC 1513e) 

Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, 

including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for 

providing to a law eriforcement officer any trut�ful information relating to the 

commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be.fined under this title 

or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. 

18 USC §1001- Crimes and Criminal Procedure 

whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or iudicial 

branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully-

(]) falsifies, conceals, of covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; 

(2) makes any materially false, .fictitious, or.fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any

materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

OTHER 

Page xii of xii 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 12 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 12 of 49
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

Brooks respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below. 

OPINIONS BELOW 

For cases from federal courts: 

1. The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix Cand is unpublished

US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CASE #19-71240 

Brooks v US DOL Review Board #2017-0033 

The opinion of the United States Administrative Law Court appears at Appendix D and is 

unpublished 

US DOL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD CASE #2017-0033 

BROOKS v Agate Health Care, appealing 

The opinion of the United States Administrative Law Court s appears at Appendix E and is 

unpublished 

US DOL, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE #2016-SOX-00037 

Brooks v Agate Resources 

** Brooks was hospitalized and the Courts refused to grant an extension of time to appeal their

dismissal of the below related cases:

II. The opinion of the US Department of Labor, Administrative Review Board, appears at

Appendix F and is unpublished

US DOL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD CASE #2019-0078 

Brooks v Agate Health Care 

The opinion of the US Administrative Law Court appears at Appendix G and is unpublished 

US DOL, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE #2018-SOX-00046 

Brooks v Agate Health Care 

JURISDICTION 

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1 ), an appeal from the US 

Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit (9th Circuit). 

Due Process Claus of the Constitution, 5th and 14th Amendments 

Page 1 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 13 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 13 of 49
Constitutional Question on the ADA, AD AAA, Rehabilitation Act Applicability to the Federal 

Courts and Congressional Mandates. ( 1) May the Article 3 Courts ignore Congressional 

Mandates? (2) May the federal courts give their employees and judges rights that they deny 

everyone else? 

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED 

Article 3 of the US Constitution, Congress may establish inferior courts from time to time 

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process Clauses. 

• This case involves procedural due process in a civil preceding

• This case involves substantiative due process - prohibitions against vague laws, the courts

inventing law, especially with regards to discovery, in forma pauperis standards, and FRCP 73.

The Courts have/are ignoring both statutory law and established case law

• The case involves due process in violation of Brooks's Bill of Rights in

A. ignoring basic human rights for a profoundly disabled litigant,

B. intentionally inflicting bodily harm on Brooks

C. Harming by hiding evidence for hundreds of thousands of patients harmed by state

officials

D. The denial, by the Oregon District Courts, of Due Process for citizens in 33 states who

health records were sold, bartered, and exchanged, doing them physical and financial

harm.

Appeal of the Oregon District and Ninth Circuit Courts denying Petitioners The Right to 

Counsel, Right to Effective Counsel in Civil Cases where the Life and Freedom of the Petitioner 

is At Risk. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

19-71240, and the related and case #2019-0078, were both decided on April 21, 2020.

This was no fluke; the courts illegally communicated. 19-71240 was dismissed for "failure to 

prosecute", failure to pay court fees. Petitioner Michael T. Brooks was not able to appeal 

#2019-0078 because he is incapable for working for more than a few minutes at a time due to 

disabilities - paralysis of the left side, multiple sclerosis, impaired involuntary swallow reflex, 

cardiac problems (atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, bradycardia) due to spinal injuries resulting 

from on the job injuries that Brooks' employer denied medical care for and terminated him 

without care or recourse to care as punishment for whistleblowing. 

Page 2 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 14 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 14 of 49
Brooks' former employer was the Oregon contractor empowered and tasked with 

approving or denying laboratory and radiological procedures, prescription drugs, specialist care. 

Brooks' employer has spent ten years preventing Brooks from obtaining care and caused and 

created Brooks' paralysis and multiple sclerosis. 

A. In Forma Paueris, APCP 24 AND Motion To A1moint Counsel

Brooks was in formas pauperis at the District Court level [ 6: l 5-cv-00983, docket #5].

The Appellate Court ignored ARCP 25 and required Books to file a new application. Then, in an 

Order dated September 19, 2019, the Court wrote: 

Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 2) is denied 

because we find that petitioner is not indigent. Within 28 days after the date of this 

order, petitioner shall pay $500.00 to this court. If petitioner does not comply with 

this order, the petition will be dismissed by the Clerk for failure to prosecute, 

regardless of further filings by petitioner. The motion for appointment of counsel 

(Docket Entry No. 10) is denied. No motions for reconsideration, clarification, or 

modification of this denial shall be filed or entertained. 

In what reality is a homeless Petitioner not "indigent"? Brooks cannot afford prescription 

medication, medical care, and personal assistance and housing and food expenses. Brooks cannot 

bath himself, dress himself, and cannot lay down without downing in his own saliva because the 

spinal injuries to his neck destroyed his involuntary swallow reflex. 

The Ninth Circuit Judges ignored their requirements under FRCP 24 and with common 

sense. There is a process that the District and Appellate Court are required to adhere to reject a 

prior approved informa pauperis grant. No judge or court did that. 

B. ADA, ADAAA, Rehabilitation Act Violations; Brooks' Poverty

Brooks was paralyzed on the left side and faced prescription drug costs of more than

$800 a month, charges for physical therapy and warm water therapy, and for medical care. The 

core to Brooks' wrongful termination case was Agate Resources - Centene Corporation's 

denying and interfering with Brooks' ability to get medical care or imagining and treatment. 

Brooks has a lengthy list of injuries incurred on the job at Agate Resources: a detached 

retina, three tears to the retina and the loss of vision to the right eye due to lack of treatment; a 

broken right foot and a crushed left foot and an injured (and never treated) lower back. Both the 

Page 3 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 15 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 15 of 49
head of Outpatient Physical Therapy at River Bend (Sacred Heart Hospital) and Brooks Primary 

Care Doctor wrote the Court letters asking for accommodations. The Courts ignored those and 

the medical records sent them. 

In mid 2012, a mass was found in the lower lobe of Brooks' right lung. Agate refused 

Brooks and his doctors request for FMLA leave and time for surgery. Brooks was distraught and 

his doctors wrote Agate asking that Brooks be permitted to take some of the three months of 

vacation he had coming to get treatment. Agate refused and not only refused accommodation, 

Agate demanded complete access to the the doctor and medical records. 

Agate denied Brooks' request to telecommute when he had broken feet. Instead, Agate 

COO Patrice Korjenek had Agate employees pick Brooks up from home and drop him off at 

work early in the morning. (Originally, Korjenek tried to force Brooks to pay for a taxi to and 

from work.) Brooks would be demeaned by being forced to work as a custodian until 8:30 AM. 

Then, Brooks would work as a programmer and DBA until 7 PM or so. Korjenek would leave 

him with no ride home. Brooks had a sleeping bag, pillow, a box of instant oat meal, and shaving 

kit in his filing cabinet because he had to sleep on the floor of his cubical at least one or two 

nights per week. Brooks couldn't even get food unless his supervisor, Amanda Cobb, felt like 

everyone ordering takeout food. 

The lack of care was what cost Brooks the sight in his right eye in 2014 and led to the 

collapse of the right lung in June 2018 and cancer surgery on July 2019. That cancer surgery had 

to be done as an outpatient because Centene was blocking authorization for that (2" diameter 

irregular mass right next to the spine; invasive squamous cell carcinoma). 

Brooks needed counsel because Brooks was incapable of proceeding without counsel. As 

his doctors wrote to the court, he was incapable to sitting up for more than 15 minutes with pain 

and spinal compression that led to his passing out. Brooks did not want to be a informa pauperis. 

Brooks was so poor he could not afford medication and had to beg money from friends for doctor 

appointments, warm water therapy, medication and food. 

Brooks' "sin" was that he had spoken out at a staff meeting in 2012 about Agate's 

profiling patients on racial and social-economic (foster children) grounds. Agate was selling 

patient records and was denying sick patients access to care to save money for executive 

bonuses. In violation of their Medicaid contract with CMS, Agate had 23,000 plus patients 

without a primary care doctor. That permitted Agate to keep the entire $650 a month flat rate 

Page 4 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 16 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 16 of 49
Medicaid/CHIP/SCHIP stipend for those patients and deny them access to opiates, hypertension, 

and other restricted drugs that required doctor oversight. 

When those patients started using emergency room services instead of urgent care, Agate 

created and distributed "Hot Spotter Reports" that ended with ER's not seeing patients. A patient 

would check in but not be seen for hours, "waiting them out". The Court can check the EugeneRegister Guard newspaper, patients have died in those waiting rooms from heart attacks and 

other serious illnesses because they were not seen. 

Agate refused to sign off on Brooks' Workrnans Compensation paperwork (form 801). 

After they terminated him, Agate destroyed records. Brooks has enough emails to prove that, 

however. Brooks had to pay for his own medical expenses as teams of three or more Stoel Rives 

attorney's stalled and dragged this case out for eight years. 

Brooks paid for surgery to the right foot on March 21, 2010. That was a work related 

injury. The left foot injury has never been treated because that involves microsurgery for crushed 

bones and joints. The medical records report this as edema. That foot swells if Brooks walks on it 

for more than a few hundred feet, at best, and Brooks ends in a wheelchair for months. 

The edema discussed in Dr. Amsdorf's chart notes are from the left foot. It still swells 

and Brooks ends in a wheelchair for three or more months. 

Brooks had an injured lower back injury is far worse than you think: 

L4-LS, LS-S1; Anterior extension of disk material is seen which extends into the 

retroperitoneum at the level of the aorta and cava as seen on imagine #19. [There are 

other injuries reported at L2-L3] 

And Brooks has more than $2000 in unpaid Court costs , and $3000 in medical costs, 

from the District Court when a Magistrate Judge ordered him to print, scan, assemble into single 

files, and write logs for 5.2 GB of PDF files on three memory sticks. 5.2 GB of PD F's is at least 

200,000 pages and as many as 600,000 pages. 

Those PDF files were the result of scanning three bankers boxes of documents and 20 or 

so large notebooks of documents, by an unknown party; probably appointed counsel Marianne 

Dugan. Those were "taken" (stolen) from Leiman and Johnson's Law Offices on September 10, 

2017. Most of the papers have never been seen again. None of the documents marked as original 

has ever been seen again. 

Page 5 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 17 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 17 of 49
Before scanning, the documents were apparently removed from notebooks and folders. In 

no particular order, documents were shuffled and crossed PDF file boundaries. Individual PDF 

files contained 20 or more files or pieces of files. Those memory sticks also included random 

newspaper clippings, Lane County counsel minutes, pages from old case documents, none of 

which had anything to do with this case or Brooks. They were just "padding". 

Mixed with those, however, were real attorney-client emails and correspondence, pro se 

work product, color photographs, telephone and meeting recordings, etc. 

Brooks was unable to stand or walk, but the Court ordered him to print those PDF's off, 

sort and organize them into separate individual documents, rescan them, and write a meaningful 

log for them. Look at docket numbers #92 and #93. Brooks tried to file an appeal of this abuse 

by the Court and the Magistrate Judge refused to allow it. 

Brooks suffered further upper spinal injuries from that. Brooks ended in the emergency 

room on October 30, 2017, for "lower back pain", on November 7 for "severe back pain"/ 

possible heart attack, Sacred Heart Urgent Care on November 3 and 13 for progressive paralysis 

of the left side and much pain in the upper spine. Brooks was sent to Dr. Jose L.R. Sioco III, on 

November 3, 2017; at Wendy Lange , FNP, on November 7; Dr. Katherine Beckstrand on 

November 10; and Peter Lunger, PT, on November 16. 

Brooks was denied medical imaging and treatment for more than year, but an eventual 

MRI (in August 2018) showed: 

C2-3: There is mild broad-based posterior disc bulging 

C3-4: Broad-based posterior disc protrusion effaces the ventral subarachnoid space 

and produces moderate to severe canal stenosis.(AP canal dimension proximal to 5 

mm) and indentation of the ventral cord cord surface.

CS-6: Broad-based posterior disc protrusion effaces the ventral) space and produces

moderate to severe canal stenosis (A P canal dimension proximal to 5 mm) and

indentation of the ventral cord surface.

C6-7: There is minimal broad-based posterior disc bulging

Centene denied access to surgery and cut off physical therapy. These conditions 

continued to worsen through 2018. On December 1, 2018, Brooks was transported to Sacred 

Heart Hospital with a temperature of 102.6. It jumped to 105 and, in spite of Centene's fighting 

it, Brooks was admitted into the neurological unit where the more than 30 tests he had been 

denied since 2013 were done. 

Page 6 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 18 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 18 of 49
The Magistrate Judges full well knew of this, as did Stoel Rives. They saw it as an 

opportunity to bury Brooks in paperwork. It was no different in the Administrative Court. That 

surgery took place on January 17, 2019. Brooks had a heart attack on the operating table and 

doctors kept him in the hospital for a week. Brooks was released to home, "bed rest". Actually 

in a recliner because Brooks could not afford the electric hospital bed. 

The Appellate Court was abusive. Brooks needed treatment for the new cardiac probems, 

needed a surgery for a cancerous growth next to his spine (July 2019) and had a series of heart 

attacks that led to a 7.5 hour long heart surgery on January 31, 2020. 

At the Ninth Circuit, Brooks would file requests for extensions of time . The Court would 

automatically refuse them. In fact, telling about about impending surgery was an invitation to 

issue Orders and for Stoel Rives to file hundreds of pages of motions, declarations, and 

documents. 

Indeed, the Appellate Court refused to accept a Brief Brooks filed on November 19, 

2019, because it was over length. Brooks' heart stopped on November 18. He is told this was 

bradycardia, not a heart attack. That resulted in Brooks' loosing consciousness and collapsing on 

his computer, smashing ti. Brooks lost all of his work, but had a good draft that he sent to the 

court with a letter describing what had happened. The Court returned that, refused to accept it, 

and gave Brooks 21 days to write a new Brief and submit it. Brooks sent that. The Court rejected 

that .... two days before Brooks underwent the heart surgery, but because Brooks did not have 

PACER, that Order arrived on February 4, 2020, four days after Brooks underwent heart 

surgery! The Court knew the dates of surgery and the only conclusion Brooks or anyone else can 

come to is that they did that maliciously. 

This is from a motion Brooks wrote those judges after he had recovered enough to be 

able to write: 

Plaintiff's loss of consciousness resulting from the cardiac nerve damage is 

extremely dangerous. An episode on November 18, 2019, and December 24, 2019, 

resulted in Plaintiff smashing his mouth and head into the kitchen table. Doctors 

primary concern was that Plaintiff takes Xarelto, for which there is no way to stop 

bleeding, and they were fearful of a brain hemorrhage. The episode on November 

18, 2019, resulted in Plaintiff falling onto the kitchen table and smashing his head 

into the computer, breaking it and losing all of his work. 

It needs stressing that that injury, that episode, was directly caused by trying 

to comply with THIS Court's orders. Then, this court casually dismissed the Brief 

Page 7 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 19 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 19 of 49
and motions because they did not comply with length and formatting rules this 

court decided to apply. This court waited and filed that two days before the critical 

surgery. It was sent out and arrived two days after that surgery and was withheld 

because the stress of trying to deal with it would killed Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff did not receive the Court's Order denying his Brief until February 

17, 2020. Records show it arrived two days after Plaintiff had heart surgery, 

something this Court was well aware of. That Order was withheld, to prevent 

Plaintiff from becoming upset until February 17. Even, on February 17, since he 

could not sit, type, walk, lift more than ten pounds, still unable to swallow, partially 

paralyzed on the left side from spinal injuries, Plaintiff could not do anything 

about it until he had help ... that being today, February 22, 2020. 

Again, Plaintiff had previously informed this Court, he was to undergo major 

heart surgery. Plaintiff spent seven hours on the operating table on January 31, 

2020, and subsequently has been unable to do anything. Plaintiff has slept and been 

unable to do anything more and his doctors will not permit him to do anything else. 

The Court knew that, too! Plaintiff is providing a color digitized imagine his heart 

and the surgery done. 

Those "bubbles" are cauterizations of the heart. Plaintiff had both atrial 

fibrillation and atrial flutter that resulted in an erratic heart rhythm in excess of 

400 BPM and as low as 30 BPM. The value on the upper right side was repaired. 

The lower valves have problems due to Plaintiff's being denied access to treatment 

for over on two years. Every bit of this is due to untreated compression of the spinal 

system, especially for vertebrae in the neck and a damaged spinal sheath that led to 

an infection of the brain stem. 

Plaintiff resumes therapy on Monday, February 24, 2020. Plaintiff might be 

able to represent himself sometime after the end of March. This was why Plaintiff 

requested the appointment of counsel. And, that is only maybe. If Plaintiff has 

another arrhythmia episode, he will end up back in surgery. [Brooks filed on 

February 24, 2020, with the Ninth Circuit Court, 19-71240] 

Brooks neck-upper spinal surgery ended with the complete loss of his involuntary 

swallow reflex and diminished reflexes in the left ankle, knee, foot, arm, and hand. Brooks has 

atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter and bradycardia [ medical records are in Exhibit 9 and Brooks 

wants them public. Brooks cannot make a fist and cannot hold a pen or pencil. Brooks cannot sit 

up for more than 10 to 15 minutes. After 15 minutes of sitting, Brooks usually passes out. 

His back pain is worse with sitting greater than 15-20 minutes and he has to lie 

down to alleviate pain. The burning in the left anterior thigh is exacerbated by 

standing or walking .... He has some decreased grip in the left hand, decreased 

strength in the left leg as well. He denies any incontinence. The burning in the left 

anterior thigh is exacerbated by standing or walking .... He has some decreased grip 

in the left hand, decreased strength in the left leg as well. He denies any 

Page 8 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 20 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 20 of 49
incontinence. Review of Symptoms: Appetite loss, difficulty sleeping due to back 

pain, impaired memory (which he attributes to lack of sleep), frequent falls, 

headaches. Reflexes are diminished at the ankles and knees, ED, sensation 

diminished in the distribution of the left lateral femoral cutaneous nerve 

distribution in the anterolateral thigh; left foot and ankle swelling associated with a 

prior fracture with edema ... [Dr. Arnsdorf, chart notes 1/23/2018] 

Centene was the Benefits Administrator for Oregon and denied Brooks access to medical 

care, including an MRI's request by a neurologist and his PCP. On December 1, 2018, Brooks 

ended up in the emergency room with a 102.6 temperature that climbed to 105. Brooks had a 

brain infection and lesions resulting for spinal injuries that caused multiple sclerosis . 

. . . in MS, the sheath covering nerve fibers in the brain and spinal cord becomes 

damaged, slowing or blocking electrical signals from reaching the eyes, muscles and 

other parts of the body. This sheath is called myelin ... Although several treatments 

and medications alleviate the symptoms of MS, there is no cure. 

In other words, and this is self evident, Centene deliberately caused Brooks to become 

paralyzed and develop multiple sclerosis. They used their position as Oregon's Benefits Manager 

to purposefully harm a whistle blower. The person in charge of this a Centene, the former 

President of Agate Resources, Trillium, and LIPA, was Dr. Thomas Wuest. This is the same Dr. 

Thomas Wuest that Brooks had produced records on for claims fraud. This was the owner of 

Slocum Orthopedic who tried to alter Brooks' medical records. All of this was sent to that Judges 

in 19-71240 

C. Corporate Structure of Centene and Agate

Agate Sources , according to Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services

Case No. 15-04-022, Trillium and other Agate Resources subsidiaries had no employees, 

facilities, equipment, management or resources. Those were all leased by Agate. LIPA, which 

was both Lane Independent Physicians Association and Lane Individual Practice Association, 

"LIPA", was a wholly owned subsidiary of Agate. Fewer than 200 physicians and a few 

executives owned shares in an enterprise where Oregon gave Terry Coplin an exclusive to sell 

physicians rights to treat Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP patients (as of 2012 ACA patients were 

added to this and Agate Resources, in spite of lacking a license, sold medical insurance to 

businesses in 33 states). Coplin kicked back money to "his doctors" from state and federal 

money. 

Page 9 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 21 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 21 of 49
As of August 31, 2015, the Centene Corporation acquired all outstanding shares of LIPA 

and Trillium stock, leaving those subsidiaries empty shells. All of the employees of the various 

subsidiaries became Centene employees. 

This is a "flexible" structure allowing Centene to commit fraud, fire whistleblower, 

ignore SEC regulations and state and foreign laws with impunity. It is done by the subsidiary. 

To understand how Centene was able to deny Brooks medicare care, understanding this 

structure is key. Brooks is dual insured - Medicare and as a dependent on his wife's Oregon 

Health Plan insurance (OEBB) as a public school teacher. Currently that is under Kaiser 

Permanente. It was under MODA Health from 2013 through October 1, 2020. 

Centene, under its Trillium Community Health Plan subsidiary is both the Pharmacy 

Benefits Manager (PBM) and Benefits Manager for public employees. Every request for a 

prescription drug or medical services has to go through Centene for approval or denial of 

services. 

Trillium, acted as eviCore. It could act, and has, as MODA, Cigna, Optum, United 

Healthcare, Tri Care, as the federal government and as state contractors for Oregon, New York, 

Washington, California, Nevada, the UK, Spain, Serbia, and so on. 

The big problem with this is "Agate has never been issued a certificate of authority 

evidencing the authority to transact insurance in Oregon" [Oregon Cease and Desist Case INS 

15-12-003; 2/10/2016] [Exhibit 10]. That decision creates a huge problem for OHA, trying to do

a favor for Centene, because Agate Resources was the sole owned of Employers Health Alliance, 

EHA, The Alliance, doing insurance business in Oregon and 33 other states since September 24, 

1999. 

Agate has a letter from a lawyer, Peter D. Ricoy, of the Portland firm Schwabe, 

Williamson, & Wyatt, P.C , which they use to try and counter the state's $10,000 fine and Cease 

and Desist Order. That lawyer reasons: 

Trillium is an Oregon corporation and an Oregon domiciled Health Care Service 

Contractor, and is controlled by Agate Resources, Inc., an Oregon corporation 

(" Agate"). Consequently, Agate is considered to be a domestic insurer for purposes 

of this Form A pursuant to ORS 732.518(3) 

Page 10 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 22 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 22 of 49
ORS 732.518 sets forth the Organization and Corporate Procedures of Domestic Insurers 

for purposes of mergers and acquisition. Section 518 provides the definitions for acquisitions 

and mergers. It has nothing to do with conducting insurance business. 

In the state's Cease and Desist Order, under which Coplin was fined $10,000 (and Terry 

Coplin signed Consent of Entry to Order - "Agate Resources, Inc. voluntarily and without any 

force or duress consents to the entry of this order expressly waiving any right to a hearing in this 

matter.") 

Agate did not hold a certificate of authority under ORS 731.072(1). Agate violated 

ORS 731.022 and ORS 731.354 because Agate transacted insurance without a 

certificate of authority issued under ORS 731.072(1). In accordance with ORS 

731.988(1), the Director may assess civil penalties in an amount not to exceed 

$10,000 per violation against persons who violate any provision of the Insurance 

Code. 

ORS 731.066 sets out who is licensed to conduct insurance business in Oregon: 

1) An authorized insurer is one authorized by a subsisting certificate of authority to

transact insurance in this state.

(2) An unauthorized insurer is one not so authorized. [1967 c.359 §14]

Agate Resources and Centene were both in violation of ORS 731.146 for proposing insurance 

contracts, taking applications for insurance from Hispanic Immigrants that contacted them and 

were enrolled by them because Agate posted Spanish language notices advertising for enrollment 

in Hispanic grocery stores, emergency rooms, urgent care centers. They received a $650 monthly 

stipend in violation of 146( c ), and Agate violated both 146(h) and both Agate and Oregon 

violated 42 USC 18054 and 26 USC 162( c) and ( e )(1 )(A) Influencing legislation . 

Agate was the Plan Administrator for the EHA family and was continually in violation of 

29 CFR § 2510.3-16 - Definition of"plan administrator" with the full knowledge of the State of 

Oregon. They did not even make an attempt to comply with the reporting requirements of Title I, 

ERISA. Brooks, personally informed and sent records to the Oregon Attorney General and 

Secretary of States about these violations between 2006 and 2017. Brooks informed OSHA and 

the US Department of Labor about them in 2012 through 2018.-They actually tried to cover up 

Oregon's criminal wrong doing. 

The registration number for Employers Health Alliance is 712380-84. The registered 

agent is Barbara L Nay at Stoel Rives. There was an administrative dissolution of this in Oregon 

Page 11 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 23 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 23 of 49
in 2010, but it still is in business in other states - Arizona, etc. For EHA the registration number 

is 09653 7-91. This was registered on August 6, 2002. It was registered to Coplin and Agate 

Resources, but switched to Barbara Nay in 2004. Alliance Healthcare Services, 437441-84, is 

now registered with CT Corporate Services as a Delaware Corporation. It is currently active. 

This corporate structure exists for the sole purposed of facilitating fraud, both fraudulent 

conveyance and fraudulent transactions. Centene, or Agate's, lawyers will lie to your face telling 

you that are not and never had been nor represented XXX. You have to parse their words. You 

will know, have witnesses that an employee of Trillium represented themselves as "eviCore" or 

some other company. That, as far as their attorney's are concerned, was a representation of a 

paper entity and the employee was never actually working for eviCore, they were always a 

Centene employee. If pressed their attorney's will admit that Centene might have worked with 

Care Core or Cigna or eviCore, but beyond that they will deny, deny deny. 

The same thing happens when patient profiling. Brooks has the tables Agate and 

Centene's Analytics Department developed. They are quite specific in ranking patients by whom 

will get care and who will not and they are based on race, socio-economic placement (foster 

children, migrant worker, unaccompanied minor, student), age, sex, disability, race, national 

origin (they have an entire separate category for Hispanic immigrants), and education level. 

You will get a glimpse of this if you look at the hundreds oflawsuits filed against 

Centene and its hundreds of subsidiaries over the years. 

• M.D. et al v Centene Corporation et al; 1: 18-cv-22372

• Dual Diagnosis Treatment Center, Inc. et al v. Centene Corporation et al; 2:2020cv04112

• https:/ /www.contractormisconduct.org/contractors/67 /health-net-inc

• "Centene sued over lack of medical coverage" in 15 states; New York Times

• https :/ /www.nytimes.com/2018/01 / 11 /heal th/ centene-health-insurance-lawsuit.html

• "5 Ways Insurance Companies Meddle in Your Health Care", US News and World Report,

July 13, 2017

• Leary v Centene Corporation; 14-CV-2547

D. Continuing Harassment by Agate and Oregon, Employment Department

Stoel Rives usually has three lawyers to each of Brooks' cases. The court refuses to

appoint counsel, and Brooks is stuck with hundreds of pages of dense legal documents, dozens of 

motions. It is worse when Brooks wins, as he has done, in December 16, 2013 [4-UI-08128] or 

2016-FRS-03 7. 

Page 12 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 24 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 24 of 49
Stoel Rives was involved in the pay to play scheme with Kitzhaber's two person board 

that overturn the Court decision in 4-UI-08128, as well as having their private investigator 

Donna Brown being passed off as a BOU Civil Rights clerk taking Brooks' case. Add to that, a 

disgraced former State Senator whose wife worked for Agate and a Kitzhaber campaign aide. 

The author of the board decision was Agate's own attorney and Stoel Rives partner Carolyn 

Walker! 

That was even legal in Oregon because the board "need not conform to common law or 

statutory rules of evidence and other technical rules of procedure",_ That was contained in an 

appeal to this Court did not take, Supreme Court docket #16-6236. 

On October 26, 2016 in 2016-FRS-037, Brooks won his SOX filing deadline caseOn 

October 26, 2016, Judge Berlin wrote: 

Findings. Viewing the record evidence in the light most favorable to Complainant 

(as the non- moving party) and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, I find 

a genuine issue as to whether Complainant mistakenly filed his whistleblower 

complaint with another agency within 180 days of the termination. Complainant"s 

initial step was a call to the U.S. Department of Labor to complain about the 

termination. He called Wage & Hour, not OSHA. He says he called "to lodge a 

complaint," but he does not explicitly say that in fact he did complain. Wage & Hour 

would not have been likely to accept a complaint for whistleblower retaliation: It is 

OSHA ''s responsibility to accept such claims, not Wage & Hour"s. The record is 

silent as to what response Wage & Hour gave Complainant, other than to refer him 

to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. Nothing suggests that Wage & Hour 

informed Complainant that it could not accept a whistleblower complaint and that 

he had to call OSHA. 

As a whistleblower complaint may be filed by telephone with any OSHA 

employee, it follows that complaining about whistleblower retaliation to an 

employee of the Department of Labor"s Wage & Hour Division is an example of 

when "a complainant mistakenly files a complaint with the another agency instead 

of OSHA within 180 days after becoming aware of the alleged violation." That is 

exactly what the tolling provision establishes as sufficient. 

As Wage & Hour suggested, Complainant called the Oregon agency to 

complain, including his complaint about whistleblower retaliation. In the course of 

time, he was told that agency did not handle whistleblower cases. Because Wage & 

Hour had referred Complainant to the Oregon agency, he believed the Oregon 

agency"s intake worker was mistaken. But he did not leave it at that. 

Instead, he contacted the U.S. Department of Labor in Washington, albeit another 

Wage & Hour office. Drawing every reasonable inference in Complainant"s favor, it 

appears that he told this Office about his whistleblower complaint. That again 

Page 13 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 25 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 25 of 49
triggers the tolling provision: a telephone whistleblower complaint mistakenly made 

to the wrong agency at the Department of Labor. 

In addition, he continued to pursue the matter with the Oregon Bureau of 

Labor and Industries. An employee of that agency seems to have accepted a 

telephonic whistleblower complaint no later than March 3, 2014, which is within the 

180-day filing limit. The state agency"s employee appears to have commented that

Complainant"s complaint included a whistleblower component, and to have offered

advice about the legal requirements to prove a whistleblower claim. It is another

example of a step sufficient to trigger tolling.

The call to the U.S. Department of Justice is arguably another action that 

triggers the tolling provision. 

Complainant explains that the varying responses and referrals that he was 

getting from these agencies left him frustrated and confused. But he diligently 

continued to try to find out where he should file his whistleblower complaint and to 

be sure that he had sufficiently filed it. [Berlin Decision October 26, 2016] 

Stoel Rive's appealed this and argued that Brooks had an attorney, Arnold Law, after he 

was terminated. Brooks hired Arnold Law because he thought Agate's executives were being 

misled by Patrice Korjenek and were firing Brooks because of his medical issues and he needed 

medical care. Brooks gave Arnold law every dime he had, around $10,000 on October 3, 2013. 

That was gone and Books owed them an additional $1500 as of December 16, 2013. This is in 

the billing records. Brooks had no attorney after December 18, 2013. 

Brooks provided all of the billing records and emails between himself and Arnold law, 

but all he seems to have done is breach some sort of attorney-client privilege that gave Stoel 

Rives access to even more of Brooks' recovers. 

Arnold law was hired over health and unemployment. They were sent documents by 

BOLi even though at no time did they represent Brooks before BOLi. Arnold law took no part in 

the filings Brooks made with OSHA, the EEOC, Oregon OSHA, or BOLi. The billing records 

were shown to prove that because Stoel Rives said Brooks was lying. 

This should not matter, given the timelines, but it angered Brooks. Brooks provided 

records and proof that he did not have an attorney between December 18, 2013, and March 26, 

2014. 

E. Current Retaliation By Centene, Prescription DruKs, Testin"

Page 14 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 26 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 26 of 49
Centene, under the alias of their Trillium subsidiary, has intervened, maliciously, with 

Brooks prescription drugs and even doctor assignments and laboratory reports. Centene, acting 

as Kaiser's Pharmacy Manager, altered Brooks prescription for Xarelto to Pradaxa in November, 

December 2020, and January, February and April 2021. No attempt was made to contact Brooks' 

cardiologists or primary care doctor (in fact, Centene "fired" Brooks' primary care doctor and 

substituted different ones). They also ended Brooks prescription for Metropolol to regulate heart 

rhythm because Brooks has atrial flutter, atrial fibrillation, bradycardia, and multiple sclerosis 

(MS). The MS was caused by the District Court as was explained in the companion writ for 

17-35547.

F. 

The consequences of suddenly ending Xarelto are severe 

" .. headache, fatigue, dizziness, lightheadedness, easy bruising, back pain, nausea, 

heart palpitations, high blood pressure, Emotional disturbances, such as depression, 

restlessness, anxiety, possible suicidal ideations, sleep difficulties, trouble 

concentrating, and problems thinking ... [Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2020] 

2017 Retaliation By Centene, Testine, Sureeries, Physical Therapy 

In 2017 Centene denied Brooks access to physical therapy and medical imaging, in spit of the 

fact that Brooks was experiencing paralysis, the loss of involuntary reflexes, pain, and was losing 

consciousness. At that time, the insurer was MODA Health, but the Benefits Manager was still 

Centene. Agate lawyers, at Stoel Rices, were also representing MODA Health and MODA's 

HIPAA Compliance Officer, was giving Stole Rives copies of Brooks and his neurologist 

appeals: 

Requested servicies: CPT72141 - Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) ... 

Service Provider: WILLAMETTE VALLEY IMAGING 

Date(s) of Service: 6/21/2018 

Claim amount: n/a 

After a careful review of the documentation provide by DR. ROBERT ARNSDORF, 

we regret to tell you that this kind of service is not covered for the following reason: 

Based on eviCore Spine Imagining Guidelines Section SP 1.1 General 

Considerations, we cannot approve this request. Your records show you have neck 

n.ain. They also show a request for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of 

your spine ... A MRI is supported for your type of pain if one of the following applies 

to you. One ... Three, you had a recent tissue sample taken for lab testing (biopsy) 

result that was not normal. Four, you had a recent infection, Five, you have had a 

cancer in the recent past. Your records do not show that one or more of these apply 

to you. [6/6/2018] 

Page 15 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 27 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 27 of 49
This was one of dozens of ever changing excuses for refusing that procedures. Prior to that it was 

directly from MODA, dated April 20, 2018: 

Re: Insured: Michael Brooks 

ID: ******; Group: *****; Reference ID: A104520616 

Dear Dr. Robert Arnsdorf 

Moda Health contracts with eviCore healthcare to review requests for certain 

services for medical necessity and appropriateness on behalf of Moda Health 

members. eviCore has re eived a retro authorization request for CPT 72156 -

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), a special kind of picture of your neck without 

contrast (dye) rendered on 4/6/2018. 

Moda Heath requires prior authorization to be requested and obtained prior 

to the date of service rendered .... 

That procedure had no been performed and Doctor Anrsdorf had to go through all kinds 

of appeals to get that straightened out. Evidently, what led to this was his sending in Chart Notes 

when he first requested authorization for an MRJ on January 23, 2018: 

Mr. Brooks informs me that he is a "whistle blower" against Trillium. He says that 

on November 3, he was asked to provide a court report which required him to sit all 

night. He said the aggravated his back pain and caused increased symptoms in the 

left lower limb as well as stabbing pain in the left upper limb ... he does have pain in 

the left foot and ankle which he associates with a prior fracture with edema .... His 

back pain is worse with sitting greater than 15-20 minutes and he has to lie down to 

alleviate pain. The burning in the left anterior thigh is exacerbated by standing or 

walking .... He has some decreased grip in the left hand, decreased strength in the 

left leg as well. He denies any incontinence. He has been unable to have erections 

since November 3, which is different for him. 

Review of Symptoms: Appetite loss, difficulty sleeping due to back pain, 

impaired memory (which he attributes to lack of sleep), frequent falls, headaches. 

Reflexes are diminished at the ankles and knees. Sensation diminished in the 

distribution of the left lateral femoral cutaneous nerve distribution in the 

anterolateral thigh ... 

On April 6, 2018, Brooks was sent back to Dr. Arndorf: 

Michael returns with persistent symptoms in the left arm and leg. His symptoms 

are worse because he cannot do water therapy and has to wear a cardiac monitor. If 

he can et into a pool every day, it takes away much of the pain. He continues to 

complaint of numbness in the entire left hand associated with tingling. The left arm 

feels weak. He continues to complain about pain and numbness in the left lateral 

Page 16 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 28 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 28 of 49
thigh. He complains about leg cramps at night. Physical examination: Sensation to 

a pin prick is diminished. He has diminished pain in the left lateral thigh 

Recommendation: We will proceed with an MRI of the cervical spine to rule out 

root nerve compression causing his reflex cbanees and impaired sensations 

The reader will note the disconnect between MODA-eviCore's claims in their refusals to 

provide imagining and physical therapy and Dr. Arnsdorf's Chart Notes, were sent to them. Dr. 

Arnsdorf's office resorted to filing appeals to have authorization moved to a state medical panel, 

as is required by law/. MODA refused. So did Kaiser with the changed prescriptions and doctors. 

Brooks got involved and wrote MODA an appeal to David essler Cass, MODA's 

HlPAA Compliance Officer, only to find that letter quoted in Court filings by Reilly Keating! 

That is when Brooks called vendors and was told that eviCore (or whatever else they 

called themselves because different insurers had different paper Benefit Managers) was Trillium. 

The Chief Medical Officer in charge of that was Dr. Thomas Wuest, the former President of 

Trillium and Agate Resources and the man Brooks has provided records to the Court for 

hundreds of millions of doHars in claims fraud. This was the owner, along with Agate CEO Terry 

Coplin, of Slocum Orthopedic, a company they built using fraudulently obtained Medicaid and 

Medicare money. 

This is made possible by the convoluted corporate structure of Centene, which is used to 

facilitate fraud. Trillium has no employees. Trillium does not have facilities, equipment, 

managers, or even assets. Neither does (if they still even exist) Agate Resources, Health Police 

Research Northwest, EHA, the Alliance, LIPA, Agate Properties, Ambetter, Health et, eviCore, 

the mail order pharmacies, DME vendors, borne health, professional and medical credentialing 

services, or any of the hundreds of businesses operated by Centene in the US, Canada, UK, 

Spain, Serbia, and maybe Russia. 

G. Why Stoel Rives Is Motioning this Court To Redact Records

"Bad press", revelations that they sold foreign-) college student records, is the

reason for the Oregon District Court and three Stoel Rives attorney's trying to get this Court to 

declare that merely reporting Centene sold a 

-is somehow a HTPAA violation.

Page 17 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 29 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 29 of 49
HIPAA pertains to information permitting the identification of an individual. Brooks 

reported one example of the kind of record Centene sold for 5, 197- students over a 15

The point is, no OHP contractor and certainly not Centene nor Agate should not have 

even had those records. Possessing thrn was illegal under HIPAA, 45 CFR 164.508. They were 

prohibited from having counseling, drug and alcohol abuse, HIV, STD, psychiatric and student 

records. But Agate-Centene SOLD them!

You cannot discuss why Centene were prohibited from records without describing the 

contents of the records and none of that violates HIPAA.And all of that is legal under Section 

261-4, Public Interest and Benefit Claus ofHIPAA:

5) Permitted Public Interest and Benefit Activities.

For whistleblowing

For revealing victims of abuse, neglect or domestic violence.

For health oversight activities (e.g. the public's right to know)

For judicial and administrative proceedings

For law enforcement purposes

All it might violate is the cover wished for by a big pocketed corrupt multinational healthcare 

company looking to keep its crimes a secret. 

H. Oriein of ALJ Cases - Berlin and Larson; orie:inal BOLi/OSHA Filine

Brooks and members of Brooks family were threatened and assaulted for Brooks' 

whistleblowing against Agate, Centene, and Oregon. Brooks wife and daughter were followed. 

Brooks son was threatened (Coburg Police/Lane County Sheriff complaint C20160046) and both 

Brooks and his son were physically assaulted (O re State Police complaint CA 10830/Russatto ). 

Brooks yard was tom up and his fence damaged when a large dark blue pickup truck drove 

across the lawn and through a fence to avoid Brooks and his neighbors when he was discovered 

with a listening device. 

Page 18 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 30 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 30 of 49
It was the Oregon State Police and detective Russatto that filed the OSHA complaint that 

led to ALJ Berlin's courtroom. Judge Berlin initially decided to grant Brooks right to a hearing. 

Stoel Rives at that claimed that Brooks was represented an attorney. 

A check of the records shows Berlin decidine in Brooks favor on October 26, 2016. In 

other words, Brooks won: 

Findings. Viewing the record evidence in the light most favorable to Complainant 

(as the non- moving party) and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, I find 

a genuine issue as to whether Complainant mistakenly filed his whistleblower 

complaint with another agency within 180 days of the termination. Complainant"s 

initial step was a call to the U.S. Department of Labor to complain about the 

termination. He called Wage & Hour, not OSHA. He says he called "to lodge a 

complaint," but he does not explicitly say that in fact he did complain. Wage & Hour 

would not have been likely to accept a complaint for whistle blower retaliation: It is 

OSHA "s responsibility to accept such claims, not Wage & Hour"s. The record is 

silent as to what response Wage & Hour gave Complainant, other than to refer him 

to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. Nothing suggests that Wage & Hour 

informed Complainant that it could not accept a whistleblower complaint and that 

he had to call OSHA. 

As a whistleblower complaint may be filed by telephone with any OSHA employee, 

it follows that complaining about whistleblower retaliation to an employee of the 

Department of Labor"s Wage & Hour Division is an example of when "a 

complainant mistakenly files a complaint with the another agency instead of OSHA 

within 180 days after becoming aware of the alleged violation." That is exactly what 

the tolling provision establishes as sufficient. 

At that point, Stoel Rives file a motion to reconsidered and resorted to lying. First they 

claimed that Brooks had a lawyer and produced an email by a former attorney at Stoel Rives, 

Ryan Gibson, purportedly between himself and Michael Vergamini where Mr. Vergamini claimed 

to represent Brooks. 

The date on that was September 2, 2014. Now, this would have had no bearing on the 

case, but Brooks did not know Mr. Vergamini on September 2, 2014. In fact, Books filed a motin 

for Mandamus with the Oregon Supreme Court on September 2, 2014, over the Oregon 

Department of Justice withholding evidence Brooks filed with the court of Agate selling 

employee and their family's medical records. That was filed Pro Se and Brooks does not even 

think the Court would allow him to file any motion if he was represented by counsel. 

Furthermore, and Mr. Vergamini stated he had never heard of that email and he had kept all 

copies of his emails. Brooks suspects this was another forgery. 

Page 19 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 31 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 31 of 49
In the Coppinger-Martin case the Ninth Circuit decided that Coppinger-Martin filed an 

SOX claim too late. Stoel Rives finessed that into meaning if Plaintiff had ever hired a lawyer 

for any reason, he somehow lost all rights to tolling and had to have filed a whistleblower 

retaliation claim. That is not what Coppinger says. 

Coppinger, regardless, Brooks has tried, repeatedly, to show (a) that he did not have an 

attorney when he filed and did not use an attorney in his BOLI case and (b) that it would not 

have mattered because Brooks filed within the statutory time in effect, 180 days for SOX, 

ADA, ADA, Dodd Frank, False Claims Act, (retaliation), FMLA, and 30 days for OSH Act. 

In Coppinger-Martin, the plaintiff filed a whistleblower action under SOX with OSHA on 

October 13, 2006. Nordstrom moved to dismiss her case as untimely/late because she had 

terminated her on April 21, 2006. At the time there was a 60 day filing deadline for SOX 

complaints. 

ALJ Berlin simply ignored Brooks' telephone records and other proofs, but especially his 

recordings with BOLI attorney Jeremy Wolff. Berlin was off in the weeds citing Stoel Rives 

waving that fictitious September 2, 2014, letter. That would not have mattered in any event 

because Brooks filed with BOLI and that March 3, 2014, recorded telephone call with Mr. Wolff 

proves that Brooks had filed with BOLI with specific complaints on "securities fraud", 

"violations of insurance regulations", "violations of HIPAA" and the "Civil Rights Act". 

In fact, it would not matter if Brooks had 100 lawyers, because Brooks fhad an initial 

contact with initial with OSHA-Oregon OSHA, the EEOC, and BOLI on September 26, 2013. 

Brooks has an email from the US Department of Labor OIG telling Brooks he has to file 

with Oregon OSHA: 

For more information, you may visit OSHA's Whistleblower Protection 

Program website at www.whistleblowers.gov/ or you may call the Local OSHA 

Office for assistance. The office to best answer your questions referring to 

retaliation is the Local Oregon - Salem OSHA office. You may contact this office at 

(503) 378-3272.

When Brooks contacted that office he was told: 

00. Federal OSHA doesn't have jurisdiction in Oregon. We are a State

Plan state. So we manage our own state plan, our own OSHA regulations and 

Bureau of Labor and Industries for Oregon handles the whistleblower worker 

retaliation claims. OSHA doesn't have any jurisdiction here unless you're on a 

reservation or a controlled military base or something of that nature. 

Page 20 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 32 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 32 of 49
That was emphasized in several other calls to Oregon OSHA. 

00: Do me a favor. Go to the Oregon OSHA website, please ... it's got a couple of 

pages . ... if you look at the statutes ... it comes up as 29 USC 218C, which is the 

Affordable Care Act. It comes up with Sarbanes Oxley, because this is a publicly traded_ 

company 18 USC 1514A and it used to come up with Privacy Act ... Dodd Frank, ... 12 

USCA 5567 ... 

Brooks was placed on Administrative Leave (September 16, 2013) based on an 

anonymous complaint that Agate refused to reveal to Brooks. Brooks called and spoke with 

OSHA, the EEOC and BOLi about his whistleblower claims on September 26, 2013. Brooks 

provided telephone records proving that. Brooks was terminated the next day, on September 27, 

2013. Brooks was still assuming this was health related and concerned his speaking out against 

patient profiling and did not suspect it was whistleblower retaliation until his private Microsoft 

email and cloud accounts were hacked into on September 20, 2013. Emails and documents were 

opened and deleted. An eventual report by Microsoft showed these to be by Agate Resources and 

Stoel Rives (the 9/20/2013 intrusion was from a public WIFI terminal, WayPort 64 in downtown 

Seattle, a block away from Stoel Rives Offices. Brooks also has two emails containing malware 

from sent by Agate HR Manager, Nanette Woods on September 18, 2013, and September 24, 

2014. Brooks also obtained records of the hacking firm Agate used, Dragon Works, and the dates 

and times of their intrusions and photographs of and witnesses to the dark blue truck they used. 

OSHA told Brooks that BOLi had jurisdiction and the task of taking his complaint. 

Brooks called and spoke with OSHA and telephone records show OSHA returning that call and 

Brooks' working with a BOLi intake clerk to write down his complaints. That would have 

satisfied the filing deadline as of September 26, 2013. 

Note that Brooks related the fact that his job was 

But, let's assume that Brooks' claims needed to cite specific statutes. That was done 

before March 3, 2014. A telephone call from BOLi attorney Jeremy Wolff refers to: 

... statutory claims that we have to cover on in the complaint ... There are two 

statutory claims for the disability related thing . .. the harassment complaint ... 

discriminatory termination. Multiple claims that the termination was motivated by 

disability. And also kind of a whistleblowing retaliation claim ... based on security 

fraud and violations of health insurance regulations and HIP AA is also relevant on 

this as well [Ex. 7 - page 8] 

Page 21 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 33 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 33 of 49
March 3, 2014, was exactly 158 days from September 27. lfyou wanted to really stretch it, if 

wold be 168 days from September 16. Brooks swear, though, that he had no idea he was being 

terminated until the last minute on September 27, 2013. Also on that recording is Wolff making 

arrangements with him to come to BOLi headquarters with his evidence. Mr. Wolff was filing 

and cross filing other complaints. Brooks signed an additional complaint on March 6, 2014 and 

Wolff had that notarized. Brooks kept notes at that March 6, 2014, meeting [Exhibit 7B]. Note 

the filings BOLi is covering- Sarbanes Oxley 18 USC 1514A, Affordable Care Act - 29 USC 

218C, Dodd Frank- 12 USC 5567 & 15 USC 7a-3, False Claims Act- 31 USC 3729 - 3733, 

OSH Act - 27 USC 660( c ), HIPAA -45 CFR 160.316. 

Brooks signed the HIPAA complaint affidavit, but had nothing written down to prove the 

statute Mr. Wolff named. Brooks looked that up when he got home that night. Brooks did not get 

a copy of the complaint signed on March 6, 2014. Mr. Wolff was looking into cross filed 

complaints with HHS, but all Brooks has in his notes is "Section 189 or 159". Brooks cannot 

read his own writing and the original was stolen by Marianne Dugan. 

Brooks makes copies of his emails and documents and has ones received from Agate HR 

Director Nanette Woods on September 18 and September 24, 2013, contained malware/spyware 

that permitted an unknown party to remotely look into Brooks' computer. 

Brooks filed a complaint with Microsoft, his email and cloud account vendor. Brooks was 

not able to get records of the intrusions from Microsoft until BOLi attorney Jeremy Wolff 

intervened and got Microsoft to give Brooks the IP records and dates and times of intrusions. 

Brooks did not get that until May 20, 2014. Brooks sent off a copy of this to Mr. Wolff and BOLi 

on May 21, 2014. 

Brooks had to pay to have the malware/spyware removed from his MacBook Air 

computer. It was never the same after, however, and Brooks did not trust it. Agate wrecked that 

computer and, later, a MacBook Pro Brooks bought to replace it. 

Brooks has records of all of this, including the hacking and malware. Brooks filed a 

criminal complaint with the FBI about that on June 19, 2014. 

I. ALJ Confused By Stoel Rives and Brooks Proof of Filin�

Page 22 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 34 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 34 of 49
Judge Berlin was just plain wrong about when Brooks filed, about who Brooks filed with, 

and about when Brooks had an attorney, bur that is a rabbit trail he did not need to go down. 

Brooks is trying to cut through the fog created by Stoel Rives. Brooks was fired by Agate 

on January 27, 2013. Brooks has telephone records proving the spoke with the OSHA, the EEOC 

and Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI). 

Brooks hired Arnold Law from October 3 2013 through December 18, 2013. Arnold law 

went through the $10,000 retainer Brooks gave them in that amount of time just seeing the 

unemployment matter. Brooks owed them $1,500 more dollars. They had nothing to do with 

OSHA, Oregon OSHA, BOLI nor the Department of Labor. All of those records were provided 

to Berlin and to the ARB. BOLI sent Arnold Law papers, but Brooks told Oregon that Arnold 

Law did not represent him and was charging him to forward those papers to him. Brooks asked 

them to stop. They did not. 

Next, Stoel Rives claimed (and Judge Berlin wrote) that Brooks had retained Michael 

Vergamini on September 2, 2014. Brooks had not even met Mr. Vergamini on September 2, 2014. 

That was the day Brooks filed suit against Oregon and BOLI for apparently not having filed the 

whistleblower and medical claims Mr. Wolff can be plainly heard talking to Brooks about in the 

recording made on March 3, 2014, six month prior. Instead, BOLI tried to pass off a document 

by a Stoel Rives Oregon had working at BOLI, Donna Brown, who they assigned to Brooks' 

case in violation of all manner of laws. Ms. Brown was put in a position to query Brooks about 

what he knew, who else knew, where proof of his allegations was. 

Brooks met and hired Vergamini for one day, November 18, 2014. Brooks did not know 

how to dismiss a suit with leave to refile it. The EEOC was opening an investigation of BOLI 

and Brooks had to dismiss that suit, but did not trust anyone at that point, so he wanted to 

maintain that suit somehow. The first time Brooks ever met Michael Vergamini was in 

September 2014. The first legal contact noted in Brooks calendar and in emails was on 

November 16, 2014, when Brooks had Mr. Vergamini help him write a Brief to the Oregon 

Court of Appeals in an unemployment case. Berlin wrote: 

The civil action filed on September 2, 2014, also defeats Complainant"s equitable 

tolling argument in a second and independent way. As discussed above, 

Complainant alleged in the district court that he was attempting to raise wrongful 

termination claims, including claims related to Sarbanes-Oxley. Consistent with this, 

Complainant only dismissed this district court action when defendant State of 

Page 23 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 35 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 35 of 49
Oregon (BOLi) agreed to amend his BOLi complaint to add a Sarbanes-Oxley 

whistleblower complaint. That was plainly a purpose of the litigation. But, crucially, 

it was an attorney, Michael D. Vergamini, who signed the voluntary dismissal papers 

on behalf of Complainant on November 18, 2014. Even if Mr. Vergamini first began 

his representation of Complainant on that date, November 18, 2014, it was 503 days 

before Complainant filed the OSHA complaint on April 4, 2016. Complainant was 

charged with knowledge of how to proceed on his claims and did not do so for 503 

days, making them untimely. 

Brooks brought up what he thought was an already filed Sarbanes Oxley case with the 

Oregon Supreme Court in a PRO SE filing "PETITION FOR A PEREMPTORY WRIT OF 

MANDAMUS" filed on September 2, 2014. Brooks did not even know Vergamini. Don't you 

think if Brooks was represented by an attorney he would have used them instead of proceeding 

Pro Se? Instead, Brooks wrote: 

I suspect that this is a consequence of the political fallout of the Cover 

Oregon fiasco. I don't care about politics, but I did collect records, notes, database 

tables, made note of conversations, and much other information concerning wrong 

doing by Agate and the Oregon Health Authority, payoffs to public officials (again), 

agency heads, elected officials, businessmen, aides, OHP contractors, and wrong 

doing by the Oregon Justice Department. The timeline of the Petitioners reporting 

illnesses, the dates are repetition of multiple hacks of the Petitioners computer, the 

utterly insane wiretaps of his cell phone, these actions is far to cute to be 

coincidental and Agate and the State should be punished for cooperating with this 

outfit in harming the Petitioner. 

I had collected, and stored on my work computer, records of payoffs and 

fraud, some of it encrypted. A Spoliation letter was received by Nanette Woods, at 

Agate, on October 3, 2013. She ordered the destruction of those computers that day. 

The computers were destroyed the following morning, October 4, 2013). That 

destruction of evidence, especially in the face of a Sarbanes Oxley complaint is a 

felony, punishable by a 20 year prison sentence and a $20 million dollar fine. 

The whistleblower complaint filing deadline with BOLi was March 26, 2014. Brooks was well 

aware of the filing deadline and was "bugging" BOLi to file. Brooks filed and BOLi accepted 

whistleblower retaliation claims before March 3, 2013. In a telephone call recorded, and entered 

into evidence with the LJ and ARB, BOLi attorney Jeremy Wolff was recorded saying [Exhibit 

7]: 

... statutory claims that we have to cover on in the complaint ... There are two 

statutory claims for the disability related thing . .. the harassment complaint ... 

discriminatory termination. Multiple claims that the termination was motivated by 

Page 24 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 36 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 36 of 49
disability. And also kind of a whistleblowing retaliation claim ... based on security 

fraud and violations of health insurance regulations and HIP AA is also relevant on 

this as well [Ex. 7 - page 8] 

This was medical profiling, the sale of patient records: 

I was the data warehouse administrator and so I got to see things like stock options 

where they were paying off politicians by giving them stock bonuses. I got to see 

this stuff. I got to see some of the files where they were rolling up records for 

employers that had the employees and all of their dependents and the total medical 

costs, risk conditions etcetera and they were giving them back to the employers. 

[Ex. 7 - page 3] 

Brooks can be heard in the recording talking about whistleblower claims involving claims fraud, 

double billing [Ex. 7 - page 5]. Brooks was intending to file those claims Mr. Wolff arranged for 

Brooks to come to BOLI headquarters on March 6, 2014. 

Note from conversations, Mr. Wolff s collecting whistleblower records from Brooks on 

Medical fraud, bribes paid to OHA officials like that $5000 a month he and Mr Anders talk about 

in that recording that was paid for psychiatric hospital patient records. 

Stoel Rives then brings up the court appointed attorney Jesse London. London was 

assigned by Ann Aiken and had very little to do with Brooks, much less his wrongful termination 

case. In any event, London, too, had nothing to do with Brooks until months after the recorded 

filing ofwhistleblower claims by Brooks in the recording with BOLI attorny Jeremy Wolff on 

March 3, 2014. London and no other attorney was doing anything with Brooks between 

December 18, 2013 and March 26, 2014. Stoel Rives created a rabbit trail that had judges 

chasing after meaningless facts. Listen to the recording or read Brooks' transcript of that 

recording, something the ALJ's and ARB and Ninthe Circuit should have done and did not. 

Some clarification is necessary. Brooks has phone records showing he contacted federal 

OSHA, Oregon OSHA and BOLI on September 26, 2013. Federal OSHA told Brooks to contact 

Oregon OSHA when he contacted them. Brooks did not trust Oregon and wanted this clarified. 

In an email the US Department of Labor told Brooks he hadto contact Oregon OSHA, and went 

on to explain the statutes (At the time, OSHA oversaw Workman's Compensation, too): 

For more information, you may visit OSHA's Whistleblower Protection Program 

website at www.whistleblowers.gov/ or you may call the Local OSHA Office for 

assistance. The office to best answer your questions referrine to retaliation is the 

Local Oreeon - Salem OSHA office. You may contact this office at (503) 378-3272. 

Page 25 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 37 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 37 of 49
When Brooks contacted Oregon OSHA, they told him that federal OSHA and the US 

Department of Labor and SEC had no jurisdiction in Oregon. The complete conversation is 

recorded and Brooks made a transcript of it in Exhibit 1. 

00. Federal OSHA doesn't have jurisdiction in Oregon. We are a State Plan state.

So we manage our own state plan, our own OSHA regulations and Bureau of Labor

and Industries for Oregon handles the whistleblower worker retaliation claims.

OSHA doesn't have any jurisdiction here unless you're on a reservation or a

controlled military base or something of that nature.

Me. But I ended up with you when I called federal OSHA. They just transferred

me straight over to you.

00. Right. And that's what they do, because they don't have any jurisdiction

here.

In another call to OSHA hotline on July 3, 2018, Brooks was trying to file a complaint for 

continuing retaliation by being denied access to medical care. He was, again, transferred directly 

to Oregon OSHA who still claimed sole jurisdiction. What is frustrating is that the ALJ's and 

ARB both were given these recordings and they obviously did not listen them. They ignored 

Brooks because he was Pro Se. They apparently did not even read Brooks filing. 

00: Do me a favor. Go to the Oregon OSHA website, please ... t's got a couple of 

pages . ... if you look at the statutes ... it comes up as 29 USC 218C, which is the 

Affordable Care Act. It comes up with Sarbanes Oxley, because this is a publicly 

traded company 18 USC 1514A and it used to come up with Privacy Act ... Dodd 

Frank, ... 12 USCA 5567 ... Oregon OSHA contracts with BOLi to provide 

enforcement of complaints filed under this (unintelligible) number .... 

The ALJ and ARB are ignoring federal statutory law and their own regulations on tolling 

in the OSHA Whistleblower Investigations Manual. It does not matter what BOLi or Seattle 

OSHA or Stoel Rives say. Brooks quoted from the regulations that every OSHA office in the 

country is supposed to abide by. Its a Congressional mandate! If a whistleblower files a 

complaint with BOLi or Oregon OSHA, it is as if it was filed with federal OSHA like it or not, 

and tolling ceases: 

1. Tlte employer ltas actively concealed or misled tlte employee re,:ardinr: tlte existence

oftlte adverse action or tlte retaliatory r:rounds for tlte adverse action in suclt a way as

to prevent tlte complainant from knowin,: or discoverinr: tlte reguisite elements of a

prima facie case. such as presenting the complainant with forged documents ...

Page 26 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 38 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 38 of 49
4. The employee mistakenly flied a timely retaliation complaint relating to a

whistleblower statute enforced by OSHA with another agency that does not have the

authority to grant relief (e.g., _filing ... complaint with a state plan. 

More to the point, BOLi Attorney Jeremy Wolff, told Brooks that he fit the definition of "public 

employee" under ORS 659A.200 and 839-010-0010 

A "public employee" is ... 

(b) Employed by or under contract with any person authorized to act on

behalf of the state, or agency of the state or subdivision in the state, with

respect to control, management or supervision of any employee;

(d) Employed by the public corporation established under ORS 741.001

And ORS 741.001 describes the Oregon Health Exchange and its contractors.Trillium 

Community Health Plan ... Under that, Brooks is a federal contract employee, also! 

The Oregon Insurance Exchange is a public corporation created by the Oregon 

Legislature in 2011 under SB99. In particular, it describes Trillium, which is a stakeholder and 

licensed to conduct business as a contractor of the Insurance Exchange. Furthermore, Trillium 

audited claims for Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP insurance programs for the state of Oregon 

and CMS. Under that, too, Brooks was a federal contract employee and a state employee under 

ORS 659A.200. 

The facts of this are quite simple. The US Department of Labor ARJ's and ARB got it 

completely wrong when they wrote that Brooks had filed his whistleblower retaliation 

complaints late. They simply did not listen to Brooks's recordings, ignored the transcript, ignored 

what he wrote, and ignored the law. Larsen wrote: 

These facts are undisputed: 

2. On April 4, 2016, Complainant flied a whistleblower retaliation complaint with the

Occupational Safety & Health Administration. OSHA dismissed his complaint on April

13, 2016, and Complainant requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge in

OSHA Case No. 2016-SOX-00037, Brooks v. Agate Resources, LLC.

Motion, Exhibit 14, p. 1. Complainant argues at length (Answer, pp. 29-35) that he

filed an earlier complaint with OSHA on September 26, 2013. But this was the issue in

Case No. 2016-SOX-00037, as discussed more fully below, and Administrative Law

Judge Steven B. Berlin decided this issue against Complainant.

3. In Case No. 2016-SOX-00037, Complainant alleged claims under the whistleblower

protection provisions of the Affordable Care Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Page 27 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 39 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 39 of 49
Motion, Exhibit 14, p. 1; no contradictory facts alleged or demonstrated in 

Complainant's Response. In his Answer (pp. 36-44), Complainant raises a 

number of other issues, but never denies having alleged claims under SOX 

and the Affordable Care Act in Case No. 2016-SOX-00037. 

4. By Order issued March 6, 2017, Administrative Law Judge Steven B. Berlin

found the April 4, 2016, complaint to OSHA untimely because there was no factual

basis for equitable tolling, and denied Complainant's claims in Case No. 2016-

SOX-00037.

On the record before me, it appears that when Judge Berlin ruled against

Complainant in Case No. 2016-SOX-00037, Complainant took two steps. First, he

appealed Judge Berlin's decision, which he had every right to do. Second, he filed

this case, based on the very same facts - something he had no right to do.

Accordingly:

1. Respondent's Motion for Leave to File Sur Reply is DENIED.

2. Respondent's Motion for Summary Decision in this case is GRANTED, without

prejudice to the determination of the pending appeal in Case No. 2016- SOX-00037.

So Ordered, Christopher Larsen, ALJ

Order Granting Summary Decision, 2018-SOX-00046)

ALJ Larsen was misled by Judge Berlin and both were mislead about dates and the statutes filed 

under by Stoel Rives. It is obvious neither ALJ lisened to the recording or bother to read the 

transcript of it. They ignored a pro se litigant telling the truth and they paid attention to three 

Stoel Rives attorneys dispensing falsehoods. Read Judge Berlin's decision: 

The regulations further particularize that the complaint must be filed with the 

Occupational Safety & Health Administration. Unlike EEOC charges of 

discrimination and sectionllc retaliation cases under the Occupational Safety & 

Health Act, there is no work-sharing or cross-filing agreement between the U.S. 

Department of Labor (or OSHA) and state agencies on the processing of 

whistleblower complaints under either of the statutes involved in the present case. 

Instead of listening to the Brooks' recording and upholding the law, Berlin and Larson and the 

ARB listened to Centene and Oregon's attorney's lying to them. Never mind that BOU Tod 

Brooks they not only could, but were cross fining, read the US DOL Whistleblower Investigation 

Manual on "Dual Filing" (p.1-4, State Plans and "Equitable Tolling" (p.2-20) is very clear: 

Dual Filing. 

States must include in their policy document(s) a description of their procedures for 

informing private sector complainants of their right to concurrently file a complaint ... 

And, from Oregon OSHA's own directive given to their employees [page 3]: 

Page 28 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 40 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 40 of 49
Dual filing- Complainant has the right to concurrently file with federal OSHA and 

BOLi. Complainant will he notified of these rights during the BOLi screening process. 

Federal OSHA will defer to the state plan to conduct their investigation, hut this 

preserves the complaint's right to seek a federal remedy should BOLi he unable to 

effect appropriate relief. 

Berlin, Larsen, the ARB, all had a telephone recording of Brooks speaking with BOLI attorney 

Jeremy Wolff on March 3, 2014, where Wolff discussed having filed whistleblower retaliation 

claims with OSHA! They all had Brooks citing them the actual statutes written and they ignored 

them. 

If they had bother to listen to the recordings, they would have heard BOLI attorney 

Jeremy Wolff arranging for Brooks to meet with him at BOLI headquarters on March 6, 2014, to 

sign another whistleblower complaint and for Brooks to provide evidence and discuss further 

statutes to be filed under. Brooks signed another formal complaint and that was notarized on the 

spot. That statement was signed and notarized at BOLI headquarters! They were either cross 

filed or BOLI made a monumental administrative error that ought to see their contract with 

OSHA cancelled. That is not Brooks fault, nor is it his problem if someone paid attention. 

Brooks filed complaints and the complaints were being covered by BOLI and cross filed before 

March 3, 2014. Brooks and Wolff can be heard orally discussing them on March 3. A further 

notarized complaint was filed on March 6, 2014. All of this is perfectly clear. 

It would not matter if Brooks was represented by an attorney or not because this was 

within the filing deadlines. Brooks was not, in fact, represented by an attorney because he plainly 

did not have one on March3, before March 3, or March 6. The only remaining question is 

"Where are Brooks' Complaints"? Mr. Wolff was pretty clear that those were sent to Seattle 

OSHA and Seattle OSHA has claimed not to have received them. You have a recorded telephone 

call, an eye witness to the BOLI meeting in the form of a newspaper reporter, and Brooks' own 

testimony and meeting notes. Something smells wrong about this whole thing. 

And not, March 6 was 20 days before the filing deadline. Heck, if someone wanted to 

quibble, March 6, was 171 days after September 16, 2013, the date Brooks was placed on 

administrative leave based on a secret complaint. So, even if they ignore the telephone records 

and BOLI worksheets from November and December 2013, they still have Brooks filing with 

BOLI and they have a recording from Oregon OSHA telling Brooks that federal OSHA has no 

jurisdiction, that as a State Plan state, Oregon requires Brooks to file with BOLI! And, you have 

Page 29 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 41 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 41 of 49
Brooks SIGNING new complaints on March 6, 2014, at BOLi headquarters. And those were also 

being cross filed with US HHS and federal OSHA. 

Mr. Wolff and BOLi had cross filed complaints under the Affordable Care Act, Family 

and Medical Leave Act, The Civil Rights Act - Title VII, The Age Discrimination Act (for 

replacing Brooks with a younger Hl-B worker), and retaliation for opposing medical redlining 

and patient profiling for discrimination based on age, race and "national origin" , disability, and 

sex. There were state claims, also, but Mr. Wolff said Brooks was covered as a public employee 

according to BOLi's reading of ORS 659A.200 - 234 before March 3, 2014. Brooks signed a 

complaint for additional filings on March 6, 2-14, at BOLi headquarters. Supposedly, all of those 

complaints were sent to Seattle OSHA. What happened to them? 

However, that problem still leaves Brooks as having filed, and done so legally, as of 

March 6, 2014, at the very latest. Stoel Rives and ALJ Berlin's arguments about lawyers is just 

so much fog. Brooks did not have a lawyer on March 3 or March 6, 2014. Brooks is recorded 

with a BOLi attorney discussing his case. Those are the only legal filing requirements. 

Take a look at the notes in Exhibit 7B to see what Brooks was talking about with Jeremy 

Wolff. On page 5 of those notes , Mr. Wolff specifies the whistle blower statutes he has/is filing 

under: Sarbanes Oxley - 18 USC § 1514A and § 1513e, Affordable Care Act - 29 USC §218C and 

"Section 1558" and "PL 111-148", Dodd Frank - 12 USCA. §5567, retaliation for objecting to 

HIPAA violations - § 160.316 (Mr. Wolff also spoke about the Privacy Act and OSH Act). Mr. 

Wolff was cross filing with US HHS and mentioned a statue that Brooks wrote down as "Section 

189" or "Section 159". WOLFF TOLD BROOKS he was going to telephone US HHS OIG 

about what statute to file under. 

Mr. Wolff was cross filing with both US HSS and OSHA by March 20, 2014, which 

thought was the deadline. 

Mr. Wolff drafted whistleblower and medical complaints with Brooks and had 

Brooks sien it. Brooks was assured that his filing with BOLi was the proper venue. Brooks 

recalls he was told that BOLi had already cross filed complaints with the regional OSHA office 

in Seattle. So what happened to those? Clearly March 6, 2014, is well before April 4, 2016 and 

Brooks saw and signed complaints that were sent to that office. Something is very very wrong. 

September 27, 2013, marked beginning of the clock for filing. 30 days from that date 

(OSH Act Complaint's only) would be October 27, 2013. 180 days from that date (Sarbanes 

Page_ 30 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 42 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 42 of 49
Oxley, Dodd Frank, Affordable Care Act, Americans With Disabilities Act, Family and Medical 

Leave Act, Title VII Civil Rights,) would be March 26, 2014. 

Brooks met all of those deadlines: Brooks had filed medical and retaliation claims with 

the EEOC, Oregon OSHA, Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) on September 26, 

2013. Brooks received two call from BOLI intake clerk Monica Mosley October 1, 2013 (8:46 

AM, 9:04 AM). That, ended tolling on all statutes OSHA handles as of October 1, 2013. 

The facts are quite clear. Brooks spoke with BOLI and the EEOC about his complaints on 

September 26, 2013. BOLI called back and took down those complaints on October 1, 2013. 

And Brooks was engaged with BOLI intake clerks drafting written complaints within 30 days of 

this termination. According to both federal OSHA (in the FY13 FAME Report, for example) and 

the EEOC, BOLI is their state contractor empowered to take complaints. 

All of this has been ignored by the two ALJ's and ARB for the Department of Labor, as 

well as the District Court and 9th Circuit Court Judges. There seems to be a problem with federal 

judges ignoring Pro Se litigants and statutory law, ignoring the law, ignoring the fact that 

Centene was withholding critical medical care from a whistleblower in violation of SOX Section 

1107 and 806 and having had illegal ex parte communications with the ARB: 

In the case at bar, Complainant filed the complaint on July 3. 2018 * * *. As noted 

by the ALI, the Complaint filed the alleged complaint alleging the same set of facts as an 

earlier complaint, which a different ALJ had concluded was untimely filed. The ARB 

affirmed this earlier decision on March 25, 2019**. Brooks v Agate Res., LLC, ARB No. 

2017-0033, ALJ No. 2016-SOX-00037. We agree with the ALJ's summary of the 

procedural history of the case before us and that granting Respondent's motion for a 

summary decision was in accordance with the law. 

[ ARB decision April 21, 2020] 

.... Complainant filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint with the Occupational Safety 

& Health Administration by telephone on April 4, 2016. Nine days later, on April 13, 

2016, [Seattle] OSHA issued a "Secretary's Finding" dismissing the complaint as 

untimely filed. Complainant Objected and requested a hearing before an administrative 

law judge. 

Complainant failed to file a timely complaint with the Occupational Safety &

Health Administration on either of his whistleblower claims. As a matter of law, any 

application of equitable tolling ceased beyond the limitations period, rendering the 

April 4, 2016, filine untimely. Accordingly, Complainant"s complaint is DENIED and 

DISMISSED in its entirety. 

[Decision in by ALJ Berlin on March 2017] 

Page 31 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 43 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 43 of 49
Berlin had the Wolff and OSHA recordings, Brooks' phone records and statements, and OSHA 

Whistleblowers Investigations Manual in hand. How on earth did he come up with April 4, 

2016? Berlin seems to base his decision on the contention by a Seattle OSHA that Brooks was 

supposed to file with them, but they told him to file with BOU back in 2013! The claim that 

Brooks did not file with them is hogwash and disproven by the recording with Wolff and the 

email from US DOL OIG. Berlin's dismissal was contrary to federal law and OSHA's written 

policy: "employee .. filed a timely retaliation complaint ... with a state plan." 

In addition to that the recordings between Brooks and BOU and Brooks, Oregon OSHA, 

US DOL OIG, and US DOL whistleblower hotline, Brooks was told that he had to file with 

Oregon OSHA. You and those Department of Labor Courts have recordings of that! 

Brooks wrote this to every single administrative judge and not one even addressed it. 

Brooks doesn't think they read what he wrote at all. They clearly did not listen to the telephone 

recordings. And all of this misses the fact that Brooks signed complaints on March 6, 2014, at 

BOU headquarters that were being cross filed with US HHS and with OSHA. That a previous 

cross filing was made before March 3, 2014. The obvious question is "what happened to those 

complaints? It is beyond question that Brooks met the filing requirements. 

This is and was whistleblower complaints covered under 18 USC 1001 and 18 USC

l 513e. Someone either committed a monumental administrative error or they committed a crime.

Either way, Brooks has been harmed and the only remedy is for the Supreme to take this case. 

If any one of those judges, ALJ's or the ARB had shed their blind bigotry of Pro Se 

litigants, this case would have been decided in arbitration years ago. Instead, here we are. What 

you have, though, is collection of administrative and federal judges that have made a mockery of 

the legal system in this country and they harmed a Pro Se litigant. 

Your choice, Brooks was misled by Oregon, his employer under state law, or Brooks 

"mistakenly filed a timely retaliation complaint relating to a whistleblower statute enforced by 

OSHA with another agency ... with a state plan state"). Either way, Larsen, Berlin, the ARB look 

ridiculous. How on earth can judges miss the laws they are supposed to uphold when the plaintiff 

goes to the trouble of printing them out for them. Brooks met the filing deadlines and it becomes 

obvious that Oregon and BOU deliberately attempted to derail a Sarbanes Oxley case and harm 

the whistleblower. 

Page 32 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 44 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 44 of 49
J. Stoel Rives and Donna Brown; Criminal Violations

Brooks was assigned a Spanish speaking intake clerk by BOLL Brooks is hard of hearing

and could not understand her. Brooks was working with BOLi filing whistleblower retaliation 

complaints and the intake Clerk, Monica Mosley, crossed them out when Brooks added them to 

the number paragraph worksheet she sent Brooks. Brooks asked to speak with her supervisor to 

straighten this out. 

Brooks was transferred to Donna Brown. Ms. Brown confirmed that. What Brooks found 

out several months later was that Donna Brown was a Private Investigator for Stoel Rives. 

Brooks does not know how she came to be passed off as a BOLi employee. That should bring 

criminal charges down on her, BOLi, Oregon, Centene and Stoel Rives. 

Brooks is going to assume that no one wants to make this a criminal case because it 

involves current political VIP's, including President Biden's largest campaign money bundler, 

Michael Niedorff, Three US Senators, and two sitting governors. So respondent's will weasel 

word this by backdating her hire date and say she wasn't working for Stoel Rives, even though 

she was passing documents and information to them in December 2013. However, Brooks has 

snapshots of several Linkedln pages that show that alternation. 

Even with that, however, Donna Brown was a licensed private investigator, not a BOLi 

intake clerk. She had been an employee of Stoel Rives and had worked on the Dean Harris 

whistle blower case involving Agate Resources. She had conflicts of interest and should never 

have been assigned Brooks' case. 

K. Jeffrey Wertkin

Next, look up Jeffrey Werkin, the US Attorney out of Washington who was selling

Medical fraud case files to companies across the US. Mr. Werkin was caught when he sold 

Brooks' file to Centene for $310,000. 

What is curious about this is it involves the Portland US Attorney's Office. Get the letter 

from *former* Portland US Attorney Neil Evens to the Distirct Court. He elects 'not to involve 

the government in Brooks case', but he wants it seals because its records involve another case. 

That case was the Wertkin sting involving Oregon, US DOJ OIG, Centene, Seattle OSHA and 

Stoel Rives. Evens literally trade Brooks case for Centene's cooperating in that sting. The loose 

end in this is how did the records sent to Neil Evens and Kevin Burke at the Portland US 

Page 33 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 45 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 45 of 49
Attorney;'s Office get to Wertkin in Washington D.C. with supposedly no one else at DOJ 

headquarters seeing them? 

In a meeting in Portland, December 17, 2015, Brooks met with a group of attorneys 9 

plus paralegals from three or four law firms) about this case. Charese Rohney was there. She was 

an attorney that Brooks had tried to get to take this case. In front of the entire group Ms. Rohney 

revealed that Neil Evens had contact her in April 2015 and told her the US government was not 

going to intervene because (a) Brooks did not have CPT codes and claims records and (b) Brooks 

was lying. 

Brooks had three bankers boxes of documents with CPT codes that were nothing. But 

claims. Also, Brooks had database snapshots on DVD disks that were encoded. Brooks could not 

have been lying. Rohny saw that and told Brooks what she knew. She was angry about being 

misled. Brooks wrote everything down and sent a complaint to Michael E. Horowitz. That 

resulted in the resignation of Evans. Wertkin got a 30 month sentence. 

L. Reasons for Grantin� the Petition

Brooks' health and professional life were destroyed for doing the right thing. He has been

impoverished by the courts and defendants in retaliation for acting honoraby. The key points will 

determine and set policy for the: 

• Brooks was informa pauperis. That had never been rescinded the the Appeals Court error ed

and violated ARCP 24 in denying Brooks informa pauperis status.

• The Appellate Court and District Court erred in not appointing counsel for Brooks. Brooks

required, still requires the appointment of counsel. Brooks is not merely indigent, Brooks is

incapable of even dressing himself or taking a bath on his own, much less representing

himself in a complex case with three to sex Stoel Rives attorneys opposing him. The Appellate

Court is in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act that applies to all federal agencies

receiving federal funds. These courts are creations of the US Congress and receive federal

funds for their operation. Also, Employe and Judges of the Article 3 Courts are covered by the

ADA, so they acknowledge those statutes. Ignoring Brooks and other disabled litigants sets up

an Orwellian discriminatory imbalance between the courts and petitioners. Are "some pigs

more equal than other pigs?

Page 34 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 46 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 46 of 49
• Brooks has testified and provided documents, including statement that were in his original

Personnel File on September 16, 2013, that show he had injuries sustained on the job that

were not treated in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA and AD AAA; the FRCP and

ARCP, and other statutes and rules established by Congress to the federal Article 3 Courts as

Congress intended and to states and lawyers

Brooks has shown beyond any shadow of doubt that he filed his complaints with BOLI, 

OSHA and the EEOC in a timely manner as he was instructed to file. AJB Berlin was misled was 

Stoel Rives with rumors of attorneys and the Coppinger-Martin case that had nothing to do with 

Brooks' filing. Stoel Rives used that to libel Brooks, to call into question his integrity. Brooks 

swears, however, that he had no knowledge of any communication between Vergamini and Stoel 

Stoel Rives until November 2014. 

• Oregon's allowing a Stoel Rives investigator to oversee Brooks' complaints and the "missing"

complaints provides an indication of felony evidence tampering by BOLI and the State of

Oregon. 18 USC 1001, 18 USC 1513e are very applicable criminal statutes that should be

applied against not merely Oregon, but also Stoel Rives.

• The application of Sarbanes Oxley, HIPAA, an other laws pertaining to healthcare to state

governments and state founded public corporations in light of the ACA and Congress's

"outsourcing" healthcare and the money. That has resulted in organized crime in state

governments (and Brooks was the DBA that did the OSHU "Ten State" study on state DME

fraud and can prove this)

• Revisit setting professional, ethical, and legal guidelines for judges and attorneys before the

federal courts. Disabled litigants are entitled to damages from attorney's and the Article 3

courts for their ignoring Congressional mandates in the ADA, AD AAA, and RA. The

individual lawyers and judges should be fined and pay restitution as if they were any other

agency employee that failed in their obligations to the disabled.

M. Conclusion

Brooks is asking for a summary judgement and a Protective Order, at least for his

medical claims. Brooks was injured on the job and those injuries have been caused to become 

much worse with Agate and Centene meddling and interfering with necessary medical care. 

Brooks needs medical care now. Brooks has been denied medical care for nearly 8 years with 

horrible consequences. It is a no brainer to force Centene to pay for care for Brooks' eye, feet, 

Page 35 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 47 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 47 of 49
and back. Brooks needs expensive compression socks and orthopedic shows that cost $250. 

Brooks cannot afford those and the pair he is wearing are five years old and falling apart. 

Brooks needs prescription eye glasses to compensate for the lack of surgery for his right 

eye. Brooks has trouble reading normal sized print, cannot see a television screen from ten feet 

away. And, Brooks requires accommodations where he can live. Brooks has been a burden to his 

family and friends. Brooks is tired of begging for a spare room. He cannot sleep in a normal bed, 

anyways, and the alternative has meant sleeping in homeless shelters. Brooks wants a trailer. Air 

Street makes a handicap equipped trailer for disabled in their International and Flying Cloud 

models. Those feature wide doors and interior space that will accommodate a wheelchair and can 

be fitted with an electric step that will permit a wheelchair confined person to enter and exit 

them. A hospital style bed is fitted to the handicap model which will elevate Brooks and allow 

him to sleep in a bad for the first time since November 2017. 

Brooks would ask this Court for a directed judgement for back salary and damages based 

on the amended complaint from 6:15-cv-00983-TC/JR/MK/AA [Exhibit 8]. Brooks is willing to 

submit this to arbitration. Brooks does not want to be rich. He merely wants to be made whole 

and be able to live out his life in peace away from Oregon. 

If Respondent's will not do this, Brooks wants every dime capable of being clawed from 

Centene, Oregon, and every executive and individual involved. Then, Brooks is asking that this 

Court: 

• Restore 6:14-cv-01424-AA

• Restore 6: 15-cv-00983-AA

• Restore all of Brooks whistle blower retaliation claims, including any and all statutory claims

that would have been filed but for interference by Stoel Rives and Oregon

• Disqualify Stoel Rives and all of its expert witnesses

• Disbar and Sanction Stoel Rives and Sanction Centene and Agate's former executives,

personally, required them to pay for Brooks expert counsel. Korjenek, Coplin, Sattenspiel,

Wuest personally prevented Brooks' getting medical care and Brooks wants each of them

criminally prosecuted and sued individually for the maximum in damages.

• That the new trials be scheduled in a new venue outside of the Ninth Circuit and the

interference of Oregon or the Oregon District Court.

Page 36 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 48 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 48 of 49
• Brooks wants the return of all evidence in the possession of Stoel Rives and all evidence he

filed for in RFP's that the Court and Stoel Rives misrepresents as not having been filed -

The Rico v Mitsubishi Motors case made this an easy decision. Simply based on the 

evidence given to the 9th Circuit Judges Stoel Rives was disqualified. They participated 

in theft of Brooks' case documents and hid that fact by lying to the Court. The 9th Circuit 

ignored it . Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors 42 Cal. 4th 807, 171 P.3d 

• Brooks wants Aiken's protective order struck and the evidence made public with the deadlines

missed due to Aiken's ruling modified to permit the victims of the crimes described here to

file suit against Oregon, Agate, Centene, MODA, and Stoel Rives.

Respectfully Submitted, May 28, 2021 

�i:2L 

Pro Se 

32713 Vintage Way 

Coburg, Oregon 97408 

Page 37 of 37 

REDACTED EXHIBIT 4 

Page 49 of 49

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 107-4 Filed 08/10/21 Page 49 of 49