M <zesc1971@gmail.com> Wed, Apr 28,2010 at 9:27 PM To: dhartmann@ci.troutdale.or.us, Mark Alexander <iffg777@msn.com> . . . Cc: info. fcsc@usdoj.gov, rgarzini@ci.troutdale.or.us, scott. anderson@ci.troutdale. or.~, Jo~ep.h. boyer@lc.fbl.gov, jkight@ci.troutdale.or.us, citycouncil@ci.troutdale.or.us, ritz@ci.wood-village.or.us, gaIlJ@cl.falrvlew.or.us, economicdevelopment@Westcolumbiagorgechamber.com Bee: ogec. mail@state.or. us, consumer. hotline@doj.state.or. us

Here I am obligated to correct the record.

1. I never agreed to personal due diligence because at no point in time was my partner going to be Troutdale. Why should Troutdale be interested in me, or me in them? In fact, Troutdale's ability to realize revenue from my facility was based on Troutdale's ability to secure either federal instruments (the CREBs) or the Consortium's willingness to accept the benefit of a federal grant (ARRA 09 section 1603) which could benefit Troutdale only obliquely. I never sought or agreed to accept any city or consortium assets or credit at any point in time. I am not directly Troutdale's partner, because Troutdale's money never would be in my hands. That speaks to the fact of things-- My partners - who would provide the capital or credit to my project- are others and I have attempted to arrange a benefit for Troutdale and have not been successful, primarily due to Troutdale.

Were this a municipal-bond project, I would agree to a scrub. Were this a project involving city assets/credit, I would agree to a scrub. But it never was. Inasmuch as my proposal: to Troutdale and then the Consortium was limited to trying to secure federal instruments or grants for their use FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, the federal government - one part or another- was the city/consortium's possible partner. I have answered many inappropriate questions but that doesn't obligate me to answer any more.

2. Should Troutdale have failed to fight for its CREBs, failed to follow up on Senator Wyden's commitment to provide them or other instruments, and refused to agree that the Consortium may accept the federal grant from me (which, was offered entirely on the notion that I would be extended dNPV treatment upon BTUs like any other fossils) then, I have my partnership with Mr. Alexander and I keep the federal grant. Any transaction that involved Mr. Alexander would not involve the city/consortium and certainly not at the same time--- they exclude each other, always.

3. Mr. Boyer, you are strange. Why would anyone in the Consortium have the right, or the will, to vet MY stand-by debt investor, considering that MY stand-by debt investor isn't offering to partner even with the Consortium? Mr. Alexander has offered to participate with me only during interim finance and the Consortium would receive the my federal grant benefit only during permanent phase. The two never kiss. The only thing ever ----ever --- offered the Consortium was my Developer's Grant in exchange for standard energy dNPV financing UPON aTUs IN THE LA DFILL or wastestream upon the point of permanent debt take-out, per the permanent structure flexibility? If you really think it is right for the Consortium to vet its sources, let the Consortium vet the federal program which is the source of the grant conveyed through me. Let them investigate Congress that authorized it. Alternatively, do you suggest that they vet the landfill and certify the BTUs and maybe send out engineers to assure themselves of the collateral on hand during the period of the grant benefit?

4. Mr. Boyer, what does meeting ,in person have to do with anything? Mr. Alexander has never been to Venezuela, and yet they transacted equitably. He has had thousands of investors in his energy career and he did not meet most of them, ever. Your advice is poor- you suggest that it is meeting others that causes equitable terms to appear. You then continue on, as though we had requested capital from the Consortium when in fact our proposal is to inject capital through a grant benefit into the Consortium. Do you feel that I should vet the Consortium? Are they worthy of my grant benefit? Well and so. I pronounce the Consortium under David Eatwell, a rare person of quality in Troutdale, to be worthy of my federal' grant benefit. I truly believe he will administrate those funds into the economy well.

5. The contract on the private-debt from the Venezuela is $430 Million not $400 Million maturing in 2022, which contract also been certified authentic and original. Mr. Boyer. you are in violation of your oral agreement with Mr. Alexander. You have not returned that bond to him, and inasmuch as Mr. Alexander has forbid the bond to leave the country and you say you are sending only a copy to the VZ institutions (who, also, are not obligated to discuss any private debt instruments let alone mere copies of them) you have no reason to be holding the original. Send the original back, a bearer bond does not belong in the country of Venezuela, and this bearer bond does not belong in your hands. Neither Mr. Alexander nor the Venezuelans ever agreed to discuss the private debt transaction and the US govt recognizes both the Venezuelans' right and Mr. Alexander's right to so contraCt and transact. Mr. Alexander kindly allowed you to a hold an original bond and you quickly --- after you had it in your hands---- claimed inability to evaluate an original bond, which I find rather amazing because I really do believe there

70fl5 5/7/2010 10: 12 AI

Gmail - RE: Consortium & ZESC related grant discussion https://mail.googJe.com/rnail/?ui=2&ik=954eI93168&view=pt&q=FOIA.

I 8 of 15

are consultants there at the FBI to perform this function. If you preferred not evaluate the bond, why did you ask it to be sent to you rather than only the high resolution copy front and backs? You have all the tracking information, which was supplied to you from Mr. Alexander upon which he copied the Venezuelans (who have not repudiated the transaction- do you suppose that most people would view that as a 4th authentication right there?) why do you need to have the bond in your hands? Why have you refrained from verifying Mr. Alexander's SWIFT transaction history-- would this be because you do not wish to address the $14 Million from Nigeria that vanished with federal agency assistance into the vault of Chase Bank? When Mr. Alexander's bond is returned to him, will you also be returning the missing $14 Million to Nigeria?

Mr. Boyer now has 4 ways to authenticate the bonds but that isn't the question at this point or it would be done. Mr. Boyer is intent on interfering using the only antic that may cause the country of Venezuela to consider trying to repudiate the contract- an open appeal to do so. When the American government gives tacit permission to a foreign government -- that America has persecuted by refusing to allow it to receive investment grade credit rating after it had paid down debts and offered free gasoline to the inner city poor-- to fail to honor a commitment, what is likely to happen? This is why 4 methods of validation have been provided and why we insist that all parties recognize this fact. Five methods, if you count the fact that the US govt itself has already provided a validation previously which Mr. Boyer is studiously ignoring because Mr. Boyer has some other agenda. I will never say that I like Hugo Chavez, but I oppose our persecution of innocent Venezuelans. God's children are all over the earth.

You are abusing your powers, Mr. Boyer, as grossly as Mr. Garzini, who abused me before 4 cities without any cause whatsoever. Everyone on Troutdale City Council can confirm that I never asked for city assets or credit at any time. Mr. Eatwell can confirm as wen, that I never requested Consortium assets or credit and specifically engaged it because I thought that by the Consortium's lack of bond authority I could begin to avoid the slanders that continually flow from Troutdale. Mr. Garzini's attack was unprovoked and merit-less. Mr. Garzini's own work history speaks the truth that he won't (three requests!) communicate: Mr. Garzini was certainly familiar with dNPV "futureflow" transactions (they happen every day upon crops, real estate, energy... ) and that means that Mr. Garzini's attack was not without malice or was planned to directly assist the utilities. This entire episode is an embarrassment to Troutdale.

Mr. Garzini: here is m FOIA request:

I would like all the receipts upon the recycling revenues which, utilizing tax exempt bonds, may not exceed 35% per the IRS definition of solid waste. If Troutdale did not receive any revenues and all revenues go directly to Metro, I would like a statement that Troutdale believes that the law is obeyed by Metro and that Metro is not approved by Troutdale to recycle above the 35% limit. I would like a state that Troutdale --- including any official, above or below the table---- receives $0 recycling revenues of any kind (cellulose to aluminum) and Troutdale's credit is not involved in any transactions touching waste or recycling of any kind. This is requested to address why Troutdale has displayed no cooperation with my effort, because I proposed to do so in tax-compliant manner.

We should be able to travel out to the landfill to find it replete with all sorts of recycleables, if everyone is obeying the tax laws (see attached) and 65% of the waste is being entrained.

next,

I would like all the information on Mayor Kight's Wind transaction. Mayor Kight submitted a grant proposal- who is the writer? Was this a proposal for a City-owned facility and were proxies obtained from each City Councilor so that the Mayor alone could transact the matter, or did Council itself approve the on-going expenses of the liability and maintenance costs on a wind facility it would own? If the Council did not approve this, please provide me the signed and notarized proxies from each member of the Council that did not approve the Wind Proposal. If the City alone was in this transaction the city would have paid a grant-writer. I want to see that receipt.

If no writer was paid, who is the private partner who provided "free" grant-writing services in exchange for what? Where are the agreements that stipulate that the private partner alone provides all assets and credit and holds all liability? Where is the utility agreement, the net metering agreement? Which utilities were involved in this proposal and how were they motivated? Where the utilities also the proposed RECs partners or are other partners involved? I would like to see all these documents. Was the City involved in obtaining a public grant and passing it to a private

5171201010:12 M

Gmail - RE: COnsortilUTI & ZESC related grant discussion https://mail.google.comlmai 1/?ui=2&ik=954e193 I68&view=pt&q=FOIA.

entity? As a private person I may personally choose to convey a grant to the public (my offer to the Consortium), but the city may not obtain a public grant and hand it to a private party without an equitable exchange. I want to see all those records, and this is my FOIA requirement.

The city may send me the bill at a dollar per page and I will have it sent to a third party inasmuch as I have not been able to visit your offices without an attack of one kind or another.

Councilor Hartmann, I accept your commitment to hold the City Administrator to his commitment regarding the Consortium Grant Request and his commitment to entire restore the honor of this situation. It would be only right that what Mr Garzini broke, he should fix. Whatever and whoever else influenced Mr. Garzini, he chose to avoid his own understanding of dNPV financing and that was a c olce. I wou a so I e to s op Wrl Ing Troutdale, but it is difficult since Mr. Garzini has a habit of opening fire and copying others on his own which obligates me to provide the answer widely. Even if he doesn't copy the others, his original, attack copied all, so I am obligated as always to widely respond. Consider that Mr. Garzini's original damaging email was 4-cities wide. Who does things like that and why? I would prefer that Mr. Garzini perform the corrections as he promised, but I do not believe he will do so or why has he to date refrained from discussing his own dNPV "futureflow" finance background, only lack of which would have allowed him to suspect foul play on my part to launch this witchhunt in the first place? To whom else can I give this responsibility?

Also, Troutdale itself has a r . 'Ii Mr. Garzini is yours and yours to correct. Mr. Garzini is acting in manner t at may resu In serious lawsuits with a very high cash value in damages, and they will not be Mr. Garzini's to answer inasmuch as there is an established pattern by the leadership of Troutdale. It is possible to say that Troutdale's City Council has voted to allow Mayor Kight et al to continue his slander and to refuse to allow public discourse that would have cleared the air because you refused to allow the public discourse when it was badly needed. The records of that refusal exist. As much as it would be a relief to be left out of the communication channel, it is Troutdale's job to correct Mr. Garzini and all the trouble he causes and you cannot be expected to bear that responsibility without knowledge required to make such evaluation, and if there is damage Troutdale should pay for it, and the only way to monitor the risk your staff is creating is to have the reports. This responsibility cannot be "opted out" of until the damage and dangers are corrected. Mr. Boyer's excesses and abuses are demonstrably also Troutdale's responsibility. You, yourselves, have the information that exonerates Mr. Alexander, his rightful ownership of the bonds and his right to formulate private transactions -- Mr. Alexander his exposed assets and contacts to the world in order to put you on the hook of your own actions. Those judgments are not yours to avoid. They are just yours. This is only reasonable and equitable. If I were Troutdale, I woul'd be monitoring this with great care. You are all correct that these issues must move on to "higher powers" and so they will.

Regarding the other matter, Mr Boyer has received his answer on his (non) request to continue holding the bond without cause or permission from Mr. Alexander himself, which answer is No. No extension of time has been granted. You are holding an $84 Million Dollar bond without permission or cause.

I suggest you all correct matters,

Marni Zollinger

-