---
header-includes:
- \usepackage{soul}
---

\newpage

# Crimes Against Controller

## § 5101 Obstruction of Administration of Law or Other Governmental Function
### Factual Scenario:

#### 1. **Receipt of Warning Letter:**
- **Date:** August 16
- **Source:** Law Department
- **Content:** A warning about potential legal consequences if Pinsley proceeds with releasing the NAS report, suggesting his actions might be outside the scope of his defined responsibilities. The law department directed Pinsley to send this intimidating letter to his staff.
- **Document Reference:** Pages 64-66, Supporting Documents file

#### 2. **Budget Cut Notification:**
- **Informant:** Tim Reeves informs Deputy Controller Nanton John's about the department’s budget cut.
- **Receiver:** Nanton informs Pinsley, who claims unawareness of this development.
- **Action:** The department’s budget is cut by two positions for the fiscal year 2024.

#### 3. **Communication Sequence:**
- **Pinsley to Backenstoe:** Informs him of the budget cut and urges immediate communication with Armstrong.
- **Staff Meeting:** After seeing the warning letter and being informed of the budget cut, the staff urges Pinsley not to release the report.
- **Press Conference Cancellation:** Agreed upon after Pinsley’s consultation with impacted families.
- **Budget Restoration:** Occurs the following day.

#### 4. **Legal Consultation:**
- **Lawyer:** Matt Mobilio is consulted even without an approved contract, working over the weekend to ensure the NAS report avoids defamation or being ultra vires. Another lawyer, Stretton, confirms the report's condition to be released.

#### 5. **Release Directive:**
- **Action:** Pinsley, after the budget goes to print, informs Backenstoe of his intention to release the report and attend the board meeting, instructing him to keep this information confidential.
- **Backenstoe’s Reluctance:** He asks Pinsley several times not to release the report. Pinsley says he will anyway.

#### 6. **Additional Information:**
- **Harrington and Dutt’s Conversation:** Reveals Armstrong's intention to cut Mark’s budget, perceived as retaliatory.
- **Pinsley and Hozza’s Conversation:** Uncovers that the budget cut was allegedly a scare tactic.

### Meeting the Elements of the Crime

#### Crime: Obstruction of Administration of Law or Other Governmental Function

**Elements:**
1. Action of Obstruction, Impairment, or Prevention
2. Method of Obstruction
3. Intentionality
4. Target

#### 1. **Action of Obstruction, Impairment, or Prevention**
- **Warning Letter:** Attempt to obstruct or prevent the release of the NAS report.
- **Budget Cut:** Directly impairs Pinsley's operational capacity.
- **Harrington and Dutt’s Conversation:** Exposes possible manipulative intentions behind the budget cut.
- Element met

#### 2. **Method of Obstruction**
- **Warning Letter:** Utilizes psychological and legal intimidation.
- **Budget Cut:** A procedural move, backed by potential manipulative intentions as revealed in subsequent conversations.
- Element met

#### 3. **Intentionality**
- **Warning Letter:** Explicitly crafted to intimidate.
- **Budget Cut:** Strategically timed, further unveiled by the conversations between Harrington and Dutt, and Pinsley and Hozza, showing intended manipulation.
- Element met

#### 4. **Target**
- **Warning Letter & Budget Cut:** Aimed directly at Pinsley’s official functions and the planned release of the NAS report.
- Element met

**Elements of the Crime:**

1. **Action of Obstruction, Impairment, or Prevention** - Intentionally hindering the normal operation or execution of law or government functions.
2. **Method of Obstruction** - Using force, violence, physical interference, or an obstacle, or by breach of official duty or other unlawful acts.
3. **Intentionality** - Acts are done with a clear and deliberate intent.
4. **Target** - Administration of Law or Other Governmental Functions.

### Action: Budget Reduction

**Meeting the Elements:**

1. **Action of Obstruction, Impairment, or Prevention**
- The letter from the Law Department suggests that Controller Pinsley's actions may fall outside of his responsibilities and that releasing the NAS report could potentially lead to significant legal consequences. This can be seen as a warning or attempt to prevent Pinsley from proceeding with his intended actions.
- The budget for Pinsley's department was cut without prior notice, which can be seen as a hindrance to the normal operations of his office.
- Element potentially met.

2. **Method of Obstruction**
- The method used here is more psychological and procedural rather than physical. The letter could be perceived as intimidation, aimed at discouraging Pinsley from releasing the report.
- The budget cut can be seen as an obstacle placed to disrupt the normal functioning of Pinsley's office.
- Element potentially met.

3. **Intentionality**
- The letter's content, combined with the sudden budget cut, suggests an intention to discourage or prevent Pinsley from releasing the report and holding the press conference.
- Element potentially met.

4. **Target**
- The target here is Pinsley's ability to administer his duties as the Controller and his attempt to release a report, which he deems to be in the public interest.
- Element potentially met.

## § 4117 Official Oppression
### Factual Scenario:

#### 1. **Receipt of Warning Letter:**
- **Date:** August 16
- **Source:** Law Department
- **Content:** A warning about potential legal consequences if Pinsley proceeds with releasing the NAS report, suggesting his actions might be outside the scope of his defined responsibilities.
- **Document Reference:** Pages 64-66, Supporting Documents file

#### 2. **Budget Cut Notification:**
- **Informant:** Tim Reeves informs Deputy Controller Nanton Johns about the department’s budget cut.
- **Receiver:** Nanton informs Pinsley, who claims unawareness of this development.
- **Action:** The department’s budget is cut by two positions for the fiscal year 2024.

#### 3. **Communication Sequence:**
- **Pinsley to Backenstoe:** Pinsley informs him of the budget cut and perceives it as a targeted action, linking it to his investigative activities.
- **Staff Meeting:** The staff is alarmed by the warning letter and the budget cut, prompting them to urge Pinsley to refrain from releasing the report.

#### 4. **Harrington and Dutt’s Conversation:**
- **Date:** September 8
- **Content:** Harrington reveals Dutt's inquiry into how he would respond to further reducing Pinsley’s budget, pointing to a pattern of targeted actions against Pinsley.

### Meeting the Elements of the Crime

#### Crime: Official Oppression

**Elements:**

1. Action
2. Intent
3. Target

#### 1. **Action:**
- **Warning Letter:** Represents an exertion of official influence to deter Pinsley from his investigative and reporting activities.
- **Budget Cut:** An official action that impairs the functioning of Pinsley’s office, potentially linked to his investigative actions.
- Element met

#### 2. **Intent:**
- **Warning Letter:** Seems intended to intimidate or pressure Pinsley into refraining from releasing the report.
- **Budget Cut:** Occurs amidst Pinsley’s investigative activities, suggesting a possible intent to oppress or hinder these actions.
- Element met

#### 3. **Target:**
- **Pinsley:** All actions are directed at Pinsley, who is engaged in the exercise of his official duties, particularly the investigation into the Orion Case and the planned release of the NAS report.
- Element met

## § 4953 Retaliation Against Witness, Victim, or Party
### Factual Scenario:

#### 1. **Budget Cut Notification:**
- **Date:** August 16
- **Informant:** Tim Reeves informs Deputy Controller Nanton Johns about the department’s budget cut.
- **Receiver:** Nanton informs Pinsley, who claims unawareness of this development.
- **Action:** The department’s budget is cut by two positions for the fiscal year 2024, an action perceived by Pinsley as targeted and retaliatory.
- **Document Reference:** Conversational sequences noted in the factual outline

#### 2. **Communication Sequence:**
- **Pinsley to Backenstoe:** Informs him of the budget cut and alleges retaliation for his investigation.
- **Staff Meeting:** The staff, after seeing the warning letter and being informed of the budget cut, urges Pinsley not to release the report.

#### 3. **Conversation with Harrington:**
- **Date:** September 8
- **Content:** Harrington reveals Dutt's inquiry about Pinsley’s budget, exposing a concerted effort potentially aimed at retaliation.
- **Document Reference:** Derived from the conversation in the parking lot of the government center.

### Meeting the Elements of the Crime

#### Crime: Retaliation Against Witness, Victim, or Party

**Elements:**

1. Action
2. Intent
3. Target

#### 1. **Action:**
- **Budget Cut:** It impairs the operational capacity of Pinsley’s office, seen in the context of retaliation for his impending report.
- **Dutt’s Inquiry to Harrington:** Suggests a possible collective effort to exert pressure on Pinsley.
- Element met

#### 2. **Intent:**
- **Timing of the Budget Cut:** Happens in close proximity to Pinsley’s planned release of the NAS report, suggesting a possible retaliatory motive.
- **Dutt’s Inquiry:** Indicates a potentially planned effort to impact Pinsley’s operational capacity, seemingly in response to his investigative actions.
- Element met

#### 3. **Target:**
- **Pinsley:** The actions are directly aimed at Pinsley who is in the process of unveiling a report, hence a party who has lawfully acted to investigate a matter of public concern.
- Element met

### Distinctions

**§ 5101 vs. § 4953:**

- **§ 5101** is about obstructing the normal operation of law or governmental functions, but not necessarily in a retaliatory context.
- **§ 4953** is specifically about retaliating against someone for their lawful actions, typically within legal proceedings or investigations.

**§ 5101 vs. § 4117:**

- **§ 5101** can involve actions by anyone, not just public officials or employees, aiming to obstruct governmental operations.
- **§ 4117** is specifically about public officials or employees abusing their authority.

**§ 4953 vs. § 4117:**

- **§ 4953** emphasizes the retaliatory nature of the action, focusing on the motive of revenge or retaliation for lawful actions.
- **§ 4117** focuses on the abuse of official authority to oppress someone, whether or not it is retaliatory.

### Pinsley’s Case

- **§ 5101** Pinsley’s ability to release the NAS report was being intentionally obstructed by others, regardless of their official status or capacity.
- **§ 4953** the budget cut was specifically meant to retaliate against Pinsley for his lawful actions related to the Orion Case investigation.
- **§ 4117** public officials were using their authority in ways not sanctioned by law to oppress Pinsley, especially in an attempt to hinder his official actions regarding the Orion Case.

\newpage

# Civil Rights against the Controller

### First Amendment Rights

#### Factual Scenario:

#### 1. **Existence of State Action:**
- **Application to Pinsley:** Armstrong and Dutt, being elected officials, used their power to vote on the budget as a tool to punish Pinsley.
- **Strength:** 8 - Strong evidence of state action given their positions and authority.

#### 2. **Protected Speech:**
- **Application to Pinsley:** The report involved public interest information, highlighted by media coverage post-release.
- **Strength:** 9 - Strong evidence of protected speech given the public interest and media attention.

#### 3. **Restriction or Retaliation:**
- **Application to Pinsley:** The budget cuts and legal threats coincided with the impending release of the report.
- **Strength:** 9 - Clear timing correlation establishes strong evidence of retaliation.

#### 4. **Causation:**
- **Application to Pinsley:** Depositions may reveal Armstrong’s and Dutt’s motivations, supported by the timing of budget changes.
- **Strength:** 7 - Dependent on deposition outcomes; currently moderate evidence.

#### 5. **Harm or Damage:**
- **Application to Pinsley:** Legal threats and job security concerns led to coercion and moral conflict.
- **Strength:** 8 - The intimidating actions and their psychological effects provide strong evidence.

#### 6. **Absence of a Valid Justification:**
- **Application to Pinsley:** Claims of Ultra Vires or defamation concerns could be potential defenses, though they may lack substantial grounding.
- **Strength:** 7 - The defensibility is moderate pending clarity on legal boundaries and justifications.

### Overall Strength:
Strong (8/10) - The correlation between actions and timing and the inherent public interest in the report affirm a strong case, though deposition revelations and defense justifications could sway the balance.

### Relevant Case:
**Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963)** established the existence of informal pressures against protected speech. The similarities in coercion and suppression of speech strongly echo Pinsley’s experience, bolstering his case.

## Tort Law: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)

### Factual Scenario:

#### 1. **Outrageous Conduct:**
- **Pinsley’s Case:** The budget cut and legal threats in response to the report’s impending release.
- **Strength:** 9 - The overt and systematic coercion establishes strong evidence of outrageous conduct.

#### 2. **Intent:**
- **Pinsley’s Case:** The actions were deliberately sequential and aimed at pressuring Pinsley.
- **Strength:** 9 - Clear calculated strategy indicates strong evidence of intent.

#### 3. **Causation:**
- **Pinsley’s Case:** Direct links between threats and emotional distress are evident.
- **Strength:** 9 - Direct and multifaceted emotional impacts offer strong evidence.

#### 4. **Severe Emotional Distress:**
- **Pinsley’s Case:** Pinsley’s moral conflict and intimidation indicate significant distress.
- **Strength:** 8 - The evidence is strong but could be fortified with psychological evaluations.

### Overall Strength:
Strong (8.75/10) - Clear, direct, and multifaceted emotional impacts under systematic coercion affirm a strong case for IIED, contingent on the depth of evidence on psychological distress.

### Relevant Case:
**Womack v. Eldridge (1974)** ruled in favor of IIED without direct psychological evaluations. Given Pinsley’s evident distress, this case could be instrumental in supporting claims of severe emotional distress without extensive professional evaluations.

## Analysis of 18 U.S.C. § 610 - Coercion of Political Activity

### Factual Scenario:

#### 1. **Government Authority Involvement:**
- **Application to Pinsley:** Armstrong and Dutt, in their official capacities, engaged in coercive acts.
- **Strength:** 9 - Their official capacities and direct actions offer strong evidence.

#### 2. **Act of Coercion or Force:**
- **Application to Pinsley:** Budget cuts and legal threats aimed at suppressing the report’s release.
- **Strength:** 9 - The actions are overt and directly linked, offering strong evidence.

#### 3. **Targeting Political Activities:**
- **Application to Pinsley:** The report’s release is a political activity given its public interest nature and Pinsley’s role.
- **Strength:** 8 - The connection is clear but may need more contextual fortification.

#### 4. **Impact on the Victim:**
- **Application to Pinsley:** The coercion led to the report’s deferred release.
- **Strength:** 9 - The direct impact of the coercive acts offers strong evidence.

#### 5. **Intent:**
- **Application to Pinsley:** The actions were calculated responses to Pinsley’s planned release.
- **Strength:** 9 - The timing and nature of actions provide strong evidence of intent.

### Overall Strength:
Strong (8.8/10)

### Relevant Case:
**Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White (2006)** could provide insights into assessing retaliatory actions and their impacts. Pinsley’s experiences of budget cuts and legal threats, and their direct impacts, echo the dynamics in this case, fortifying his position.

## Evaluation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

### Factual Scenario:

#### 1. **Defendant Acted Under Color of State Law:**
- **Pinsley’s Case:** Armstrong and Dutt, being elected officials, acted within their official capacities.
- **Strength:** 9 - Their roles and actions offer strong evidence.

#### 2. **Conduct Deprived the Plaintiff of Constitutional Rights:**
- **Pinsley’s Case:** Coercion and suppression of First Amendment rights are evident.
- **Strength:** 9 - Clear violations and suppression provide strong evidence.

#### 3. **Defendant’s Conduct was the Proximate Cause:**
- **Pinsley’s Case:** The coercive actions directly led to the suppression of Pinsley’s rights.
- **Strength:** 9 - The direct linkage and the subsequent suppression offer strong evidence.

#### 4. **Plaintiff Suffered a Tangible Injury:**
- **Pinsley’s Case:** Professional, psychological, and ethical injuries are evident.
- **Strength:** 8 - The injuries are clear but may need deeper evidential support.

#### 5. **Defendant’s Conduct was the Proximate Cause of Injury:**
- **Pinsley’s Case:** The injuries are directly linked to Armstrong and Dutt’s actions.
- **Strength:** 9 - The direct linkage offers strong evidence.

#### 6. **The Remedy Sought is Appropriate:**
- **Pinsley’s Case:** Seeking compensatory damages, public apology, and legal fees.
- **Strength:** 8 - Appropriateness is clear but may be subject to legal scrutiny.

### Overall Strength:
Strong (8.7/10)

### Relevant Case:
**Gallagher v. Delaney (1994)** underscores the impacts of a coercive political environment on employee well-being and productivity. Pinsley’s hostile experience and the emotional and psychological toll resonate with the dynamics in Gallagher’s case, potentially providing substantial support in court.