Gmail - (no subject) https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=954e193168&view=pt&q=Garzi...

M Z <zesc1971@gmail.com>

(no subject)
3 messages

Ron Garzini <rgarzini@ci.troutdale.or.us> Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:09 AM

To: zesc1971@gmail.com
Cc: Scott Anderson <scott.anderson@ci.troutdale.or.us>, joseph.boyer@ic.fbi.gov, Jim Kight <jkight@ci.troutdale.or.us>

Marni

I no longer wish to be involved, nor do I wish to receive updates from your project. I have not heard from agent
Boyer, but even when I do, I see no future involvement by Troutdale. Please spend your energies on other locales.

Ron Garzini

M <zesc1971@gmail.com> Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:40 PM

To: Ron Garzini <rgarzini@ci.troutdale.or.us>
Cc: Scott Anderson <scott.anderson@ci.troutdale.or.us>, joseph.boyer@ic.fbi.gov, Jim Kight
<jkight@ci.troutdale.or.us>, City Council <CityCouncil@ci.troutdale.or.us>, Sheila Ritz <Ritz@ci.wood-village.or.us>,
Joseph Gall <gallj@ci.fairview.or.us>, DaveEatwell <EconomicDevelopment@westcolumbiagorgechamber.com>, Mark
Alexander <iffg777@msn.com>
Bcc: Andre DeBerry <andre_deberry@hotmail.com>, david@slatiwonk.com, David L Hartmann
<david.hartmann@exterro.com>, Doug Queen <dqueen@iwantaloan.net>

Ron,

As you know, the question wasn't involvement with Troutdale. I have a year's experience suggesting that doing any
business with Troutdale isn't going to be workable for me. I am surprised you would copy Mayor Kight, who has
engaged in defamation against me, and not Councilor Hartmann, who has worked so hard to undo the Mayor's
damage. Two levels of representations above the city (State Senator Laurie Monnes Anderson staff and Senator
Ron Wyden's staff) have admitted to failing to perform for this project based wholly upon the Mayor Kight's
misrepresentations. The Mayor knew the Mayor's statements were false because the Mayor had my explicit
statements. Mayor Kight apparently is not aware that defamation is a crime in Oregon.

Ron, when we met recently with the the Public Works Director, it was because you had sent a damaging email out
to the four city area, which you admitted at the time was because you had been unaware of Troutdale's mottled
history (having produced both a No and a Yes). I felt that you were being honest with me. You then stated that
your preference was that I work with the Consortium. I concurred with this, because I had felt that working with the
Consortium would meet my goal that had not possible in Troutdale which was, specifically, to structure my project
financing in a manner that routed revenues back toward the public in order to create a sustainable economic
system. The Consortium can do the same function by routing revenue back not only to Troutdale but to the whole 4
city area through economic development activities. I was seeking your assistance in corralling the Consortium
members who had been much affected by Mayor Kight's antics. How else can we explain City Administrator Gall's
tone when I approached to provide a federal grant benefit?

We can all agree that the Consortium should be able to accept the federal grant that I have offered (arra 09
section 1603). The reason I have offered it is for my own benefit as well, I wish to obtain tax and financing
treatment that is on par with fossil energy concerns. Such favorable treatment has to date been withheld
from independent renewables.

You, Ron, made solid commitments. First, you committed to me that when you could ascertain that the grant benefit
I intended for the Consortium would be non-recourse and would not in any way show "ownership" of the facility to

1 of 4 5/6/2010 6:45 PM
Gmail - (no subject) https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=954e193168&view=pt&q=Garzi...

the Consortium or the cities that form the Consortium, you would provide your signature. This commitment you
made to me, with the Public Works Director as witness. I would like to see your signature on that document
immediately, per your commitment.

Then, you did something rather remarkable which you have not explained to this day. Rather than keep your
commitment, you staged a deliberate attack on me by calling me in under false pretenses and dropping me in a
room with Scott Anderson and Agent Boyer who did not have any interest in understanding energy finance or my
proposal to the Consortium. Neither had done any of the work which is implied to make any decision on the item in
question: they did not understand BTU finance, they did not even understand how energy finances in the United
States, except upon municipal credit which I have at all times and I believe in every communication stated is *not* my
proposal. The only person who might have understood energy finance was you, with your 20 years of utility
experience, and you absented yourself from the discussion. However, the discussion with the Agent and the Sheriff
had a decidedly pro-utility bend to it: they wanted to know if I was carrying on a long fight in Florida to negotiate a
"bankable" or marked-to-market contract which is the requirement of the federal institutions and all proper finance
institutions, to fund any projects. By the Florida PSC's complicity none of the currently available power purchase
agreements for renewables can be used to construct renewable energy facilities. Why would Agent Boyer be
concerned with that? Agent Boyer wanted me to concretely provide all the technologists and engineers involved in
this project. One of the reasons we have chosen to avoid public credit or capital was that we did not wish to share
our proprietary information. Why would Agent Boyer feel that this was his right, to extract this information upon
implied pain of a finding of "fraud"? How is it fraud to refuse to give a supplier list to you or the FBI? Do you do this
to all businesses seeking to convey the benefit of a federal grant to the Consortium?

Ron, the question asked you was simple and you have not answered it. Do you or don't you comprehend
standard energy dNPV financing? It is a yes or no answer. When will you be answering this question? I have
answered far more inappropriate questions while you have not responded to this single cogent question. The reason
this question is material is that it establishes your motivation for calling in the Sheriff/ FBI. If you knew about dNPV
upon BTU financing, you had no legitimate reason to call in any criminal investigatory team whatsoever, and your
motivation was along the lines of trying to assist utilities in maintaining their undeserved and unAmerican advantages
over independent renewable energy generators by seeing that this project, which has the chance to break their
blockade, has a shadow cast upon it. This would explain the inappropriate questions from Agent Boyer.
Alternatively, were you assisting Mayor Kight in his defamation project, trumping his efforts to this point, by implying
to all the 4 city area that our parties have been cagey about providing the reasonable discussions needed so that
you had to launch an investigation to "get information out of us"? As everyone can see, we have never been
unwilling to answer reasonable questions because we included Troutdale in our discussions in Washington way back
in the beginning (they were copied our our conversations with the OMB and Polfer at the IRS) it was always thus.
WE have been the open party. WE have provided materials. I never asked for any assets or credit from the public,
anywhere, and we have only proposed mechanisms to share revenue on non-recourse terms with the public. For all
our vast cooperation, you have not answered the one and only question requested of you, which would speak to
your motivations.

There is, of course, the chance that you had no experience with dNPV financing (very difficult, considering that
you've had, by your own description, hundreds of millions of dollars through your hands at I would wager that quite a
lot of that was dNPV) in which case, why wasn't your response to ask for clarification on the dNPV upon BTU
financing rather than call in the "marines"? What would they have been there for?

Ron, you already have all that you asked for- my explicit description of the mechanism creating
non-recourse terms and no ownership by the Consortium of the facility.

You pledged to me that you would be keeping your word and you had your own staffer present for this
meeting.

You further pledged to Councilor Hartmann your "100% support" when you had triggered the investigation (no
explanation for that yet) that you would be obligated to correct all the damage you have done, a difficult and
almost Herculean Task as it is not a pleasant thing to walk all 4 cities out of the impressions they have gotten
through this investigation. I hope you are good at the foot-shuffling, hang-dog dance. Agent Boyer committed to
close his case as soon as he understood that Mr. Alexander had the bonds and had rightful ownership to them.
Agent Boyer has got 3 authentications in his hands right now: he has the communications between Mr. Alexander
and the VZ agencies, showing exactly their process in creating the bonds for services rendered. Next, he has held

2 of 4 5/6/2010 6:45 PM
Gmail - (no subject) https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=954e193168&view=pt&q=Garzi...

the bonds themselves, which feature a raised sealed and stamp kept in two separate vaults in VZ by two different
agencies, and the original signatures upon paper that is only created for them. Last, he has the documentation from
the Mexican govt agencies that, upon receipt of the bonds directly from VZ, showing that the bonds were accepted
and deposited in the prepared account. We have already satisfied Agent Boyer beyond what that investigation
deserves. He will not be able to surmount that information any other way than by exonerating Mr. Alexander and
providing points 1 and 2 per my request. This is the reason I created a 3rd requirement for Mr. Boyer: that Agent
Boyer state that dNPV financing is done by the agencies I am in negotiation with, inasmuch as you used the issue of
standard energy dNPV financing requested by an independent renewable as a basis to cry fraud. This investigation
is only going to end one way.

So, to respond to your email, I am not asking to do business with Troutdale. I have no interest in doing business
with a local government that engages in criminal behavior, and I expect you and Councilor Hartmann to clean it up as
I am resident here and dislike the atmosphere. I am willing to cooperate with that effort. Every person on the
Troutdale City Council knows that I have done my part to have a peaceful existence with the leadership, but what I
am or other constituents to do about this predatory behavior? Why would the Mayor act to bar revenues intended
for the people? Why would a 20-year utility man not want renewables to have a chance for equal federal tax and
financing treatment?

To conclude, you have made your commitment upon specific and reasonable parameters to endorse the request to
the Consortium. I have satisfied your questions. The reason you don't need to wait for Mr. Boyer's report is
because we have more than satisfied his requests and provided all the information to you directly and to all of your
friends because of the smoke that this unjust investigation caused. Agent Boyer might have been influenced, but he
is not foolish. We are doing our part to clear the stink Troutdale started and I do not feel that you are honoring your
commitments, yet.

You owe me your 100% commitment and you owe me your performance on the question before the
Consortium. I have been very patient. You are "involved" by your own commitment and choosing.

I did not coerce your commitment from you; we did not agree to supply mountains of confidential data on
private assets to the world for no reason.

Never tell me that you made firm, broad and even huge commitments to me only in order to obtain private
information about an individual's assets while intending not to perform?

Kindly begin performing.

I want to route revenues back to the public through a mechanism and I have suggested the Consortium, because
David Eatwell is, per the record, acting in good faith in the community while Troutdale, per the record, is and has
not. The Consortium was both your choice and mine. The Consortium should be able to ask for any available
federal grant benefit.

best regards,

Marni Zollinger
[Quoted text hidden]

OR_ConsortiumRequest.pdf
176K

M <zesc1971@gmail.com> Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 3:09 PM

To: Billy Don Robinson <bdmeme@gmail.com>

3 of 4 5/6/2010 6:45 PM
Gmail - (no subject) https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=954e193168&view=pt&q=Garzi...

[Quoted text hidden]

OR_ConsortiumRequest.pdf
176K

4 of 4 5/6/2010 6:45 PM