Major errors in Oregon Court of Appeals review of case A144783 (Ralph Read).
 Petitioner again requested that his license be changed to active status, .... R: never requested that the license be reactivated- at that time reactivation required continuing education credits that were NOT required for anyone renewing an active license. I had not kept records of continuing education and was not qualified for "reactivation".  The court's statement parrots a lie by OMB executive director Haley.  This lie was used to convince the OMB to issue an ORDER FOR EVALUATION which was unnecessary, because there was no decision regarding reactivation needed, and the license was already inactive.
requested administrative review of the board's decision.- R: a request that was apparently not granted, but the Appeal Court does not seem to know.  The ORDER would not provide any information about a decision that had already been made incorrectly. If the license was reactivated, then any COMPLAINT could be filed, if there was one.  And there WAS a complaint that had been concealed from the "investigative committee" and which had been important in inactivating the license- even though the complaint was not revealed by Haley.
remain inactive due to his failure to provide the board with the additional information requested  R: no additional information was requested, and the concealed complaint was NOT revealed for 3 more months.
“Order for Evaluation” to petitioner requiring that within 90 days he successfully complete an evaluation by CPEP, including a psychiatric evaluation. R: the "evaluation" was described as a COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF ABILITY TO PRACTICE MEDICINE, which is an evaluation that has never been provided by CPEP and which is not offered by CPEP.  Separately, CPEP has never provided psych evaluations and does not offer that service either.  THUS the OMB Order for Evaluation was fabricated without regard for what was needed (nothing) or what CPEP could evaluate.  The only purpose of such an ORDER could be to prosecute when it was predictably "violated", because nobody could obtain the unobtainable.  The Appeal Court does not mention that there is NO evidence that any part of the ORDER was possible to comply with... and that DrRead proved that it was impossible to comply, based on the information provided by CPEP in its web pages and by CPEP agents by phone. No OMB witness ever suggested or claimed that the ORDER was possible to comply with- that was a lie fabricated by OMB attorney Foote, then later by OMB director Haley.
The Appeal Court states " Petitioner did not undergo an evaluation at CPEP.", but there is actually no testimony or evidence that is true. CPEP did not provide records to show how they dealt with this situation- but what is certain is that the ordered evaluation was not something CPEP offered or had agreed to provide.  The OMB never provided any evidence regarding CPEP or the details of the ORDER.
The appeal court quotes from the OMB Final Order: "“[Petitioner] initially testified that he underwent an evaluation by [CPEP], but later admitted that he did not pay money to CPEP for an evaluation, he did not travel to Colorado to meet with anyone from CPEP, he did not go inside the CPEP office or facility, and he did not get an evaluation. A witness false in one part of his testimony may be distrusted in others. See ORS 10.095."  R:the transcript shows that I never testified that I had undergone an evaluation by CPEP-- and there was no "admission" regarding travel or pay. There was no proof that I was not evaluated somehow and there was no evidence that travel or pay were involved in the ordered evaluation, which was impossible to provide so may not have required travel OR pay!! 
 board agreed with the ALJ that petitioner's refusal to answer questions posed to him by the investigation committee constituted a violation R: there is actually no proof that any important question was not answered, nor that anyone at the hearing requested more answers or suggested there was ANY violation of anything - in the summary letter Dr.Read received from the investigative committee.  The actual complaint issued in Jan 2009 stated "evasive answers", not refusal to answer. But the investigative committee itself failed to request more OR suggest there was some ethical violation.  
The appeal court shows prejudice by claiming "wrote a belligerent email to CPEP,"- the email was HONEST, and actually offered to help improve the CPEP website, so it was generous and helpful in addition to being honest.  Belligerent is defined as "hostile and aggressive" but there was NO hostility toward CPEP and nothing aggressive- no threat, only a request for further information to confirm the website information.  Lack of the background information might have made it difficult for CPEP to understand the OMB ordered evaluations, which was impossible for them to provide.  
And now the way the falsification of the case record was recognized-- by ME, not by my lawyer, who probably did not consider it possible anyone would falsify the case record.  The Appeal Court states: 
   " He never determined whether the organization's website was up to date. He never actually spoke with a person at the organization to determine whether, according to its website, it would assess him and independently determine whether a psychiatric issue was present, in which case it would refer him to an “appropriate resource.” He never contacted the board with the information that he had obtained in order to give the board the opportunity to provide an alternative order. In short, even if, in fact, it would have been impossible for petitioner to obtain a psychiatric evaluation by following through on the order to submit himself to a general competence evaluation at CPEP-a fact that the record does not establish with absolute certainty-petitioner nonetheless had an obligation to make a good faith effort to comply with the board's order, and that effort encompassed a duty to report the asserted impossibility of compliance so that the board could take appropriate alternative action. Instead, petitioner visited a website, wrote a belligerent email, and made no further efforts. The board did not err in concluding that petitioner willfully violated a board order."
Almost every statement is false and ignores my direct testimony that I phoned CPEP and discussed what was possible= all uncontested testimony.  CPEP absolutely had nothing to do with "psych" problems-- CPEP evaluates certain practical skills- NOT comprehensive skills. CPEP does not have a "general competence" evaluation, and there is no suggestion anyplace in the record that CPEP does have that- so how did the Appeal Court decide that they did?  And my phone message to an OMB agent which explained that the ORDER was malicious... was replied to by telling me "JUST DO IT OR BE PROSECUTED". There is no clue as to how I was supposed to make a "good faith effort" to get the OMB to issue a different unnecessary Order, but I did make an effort that was ignored and I totally believe that MORE effort would have been considered some other kind of violation.
     It occurred to me that the Oregon Court of Appeals could not be so stupid as to not understand uncontested testimony-- so I searched the case record to make sure it was there for them to read as I remembered it.  What I found was that my testimony document, accepted by the ALJ as "direct testimony", had been relabeled "Closing arguments", which is neither evidence nor testimony- it is "lip-flap" and was probably totally ignored by the Court.
     So the Appeal Court's conclusion:
"The board did not err in concluding that petitioner willfully violated a board order."
is a colossal JOKE-- the ORDER was unnecessary, provided for an illegal purpose (to punish, not to evaluate), and was Impossible to comply with in every part.  How exactly does that ever get to be "willful violation".  The only conclusion proved is that the OMB simply did not pay attention to what it was doing and ignored Dr.Read's efforts to help them get it right.