Chapter 3 of Licensed to Exploit: The OBTP Accountability Project
If the Oregon Board of Tax Practitioners built the wall, the Department of Justice sealed it.
I requested fee waivers for multiple public record requests. And, as is true to their character, the OBTP’s denied them. I appealed the denial to the Attorney General’s office. You know, the office that is supposed to act as an impartial, quasi-judicial mediator of sorts. I expected a review grounded in law. What I received instead was a rubber stamp—a denial padded with bad facts, blind deference, and a casual disregard for due process that should trouble any Oregon citizen, let alone anyone outside its borders being told to obey.
The Attorney General’s Office didn’t just side with the Board.
It excused it.
It defended it.
And when caught in a lie, it shrugged.
A Lie in the Record
The AG’s original denial included a statement that was factually untrue:
“You submitted these requests only after the Board contacted you regarding your licensure status.”
I had submitted my records requests on October 3 and 4, 2024.
I passed the LTC exam on September 10, received my license on September 12, and reached out to the Board well before any supposed “contact” about licensure from them.
The implication—that I was retaliating, or using public records as a tool of vendetta—was both unfounded and inflammatory. And yet, this false claim was central to the AG’s rationale for denying the fee waiver.
I asked for proof. I asked for dates. I asked Laura Kardokus directly: “Tell me when you reached out to me.”
The Board admitted they never did.
The Correction That Wasn’t
To its credit, the AG’s office did issue a corrected order. Quietly. Without apology. Without reconsideration.
“After the original order was sent to you, we learned from both you and the Board that the [statement] is inaccurate. The Board confirmed that it did not contact you prior to receiving your records requests… The corrected version of the order accurately reflects the Board’s position.”
(AG letter, Oct. 17, 2024)
But the correction did nothing to change the outcome.
They denied the waiver anyway.
They refused to consider how the error tainted the reasoning.
They refused to revisit whether the denial was “reasonable under the totality of circumstances”—a standard that now, by their own admission, had rested on a falsehood.
What the Law Requires
ORS 192.324(5) allows for fee waivers when release of records “primarily benefits the general public.” It does not say:
- Unless the agency feels burdened
- Unless the requester lives out of state
- Unless someone on staff finds you annoying
- Unless the AG’s office thinks they already “gave you enough”
The Board claimed the request wasn’t in the public interest. They claimed I lacked the means to disseminate the information—despite inquiring on behalf of the 800,000+ individuals they claimed false authority over. I had already heard from hundreds to thousands of practitioners wanting answers.
The AG agreed with the Board. Shocker.
Then they admitted one of their key factual assertions was false—and kept their conclusion anyway.
When the Law Becomes Optional
Here’s what due process is not:
- Making a legal determination based on an admitted inaccuracy
- Siding with a regulatory board that pre-decides denials regardless of facts
- Ignoring that the requester has 60 days while the Board closes the request after 30
- Calling public interest “unproven” when the issue affects every out-of-state tax preparer in the country
That’s not oversight. That’s collusion.
That’s not discretion. That’s abdication.
That’s not law. That’s politics.
The Badge and the Gatekeeper
The Department of Justice isn’t supposed to be a public relations firm for licensing boards. It’s not supposed to operate on presumption and excuse. When a state agency violates law or suppresses records, the DOJ is supposed to uphold the public’s right to know—even if it means turning on one of its own.
They didn’t.
Instead, they parroted Kardokus’s unsupported assertions, rubber-stamped the fee estimate, and shifted blame onto “limited resources” and “privileged review.” Then they stepped aside—so much for impartial, quasi-judicial actions which the citizens of Oregon expect of their elected officials.
That’s how the system defends itself—from within.
Next: The Circular Logic of Oregon’s Licensing Theory – How OBTP and DOJ built an enforcement regime around a phrase they refuse to define: “in this state.”