Business Owner Claims Governor Tried to Take Her Kids Away for Violating COVID-19 Executive Order

SALEM, OR – Back in May, Salem, Oregon Salon owner Lindsey Graham opened her business in violation of Governor Kate Brown’s executive order restricting business operations.  She was fined $14,000 by Brown and the State of Oregon, but that’s just where things began. Graham said days later, representatives from the state’s Child Protective Services showed up at her home and interviewed her children, threatening to remove them from Graham’s home.

Little did Graham know that her small step of protest, of civil disobedience, would make her and her business a target by Governor Brown and her minions in state government.  Graham feels she was singled out by Brown to serve as proof that anyone who dares cross the Governor will be dealt with swiftly and accordingly.  Graham said the Governor’s ultimate goal was to make her an example to anyone else who may try to experience personal and economic freedom.

Now, Graham is suing the state.

On May 6th, 2020, at 9:05 am, Oregon Department of Human Services, Child Welfare Division, allegedly received an “anonymous” complaint concerning Graham and her three children. The “alleged complaint” was taken by Defendant Joel Baxter. No such complaint was ever actually received by Defendant Oregon Department of Human Services, Child Welfare Division. The “alleged complaint” is a complete and total fabrication by Defendant Oregon Department of Human Services, Child Welfare Division to again target Graham and Glamour, this time by making the battle personal and doing the unthinkable – going after Graham’s family”.

In Oregon, the government forced small businesses shut their doors and “ride out” the pandemic. The government imposed irrational and random restrictions on which businesses could remain open and which businesses had to close. The government provided little to no notice to the business owners or their employees before entire sectors of the economy were randomly closed for business,” Graham wrote in her filing. “The sudden, irrational, draconian, and irresponsible orders from the Defendant state of Oregon caused many people to lose their jobs, their careers and their small businesses.”

“While private business owners and their employees were forced to struggle through the government’s draconian edicts, the individual defendants named in this action remained comfortable, collecting a paycheck on the backs of the very people who were losing their jobs, careers and businesses. Defendant Kate Brown even lives in a mansion paid for by the taxpayers of Oregon, at a time when thousands of Oregonians are unable to make rent or mortgage payments. The repugnant nature of this conflict should not be lost on anyone,” the lawsuit reads.

The lawsuit contends the government exceeded his reasonable boundary:

  • Threatening Graham with a $70,000.00 fine when they knew Graham had not been generating income for nearly six (6) weeks, knowing full well that such a fine would likely bankrupt Graham and Glamour.
  • Threatening Graham with revocation of her Individual License and Facility License even though there was no evidence whatsoever that anything Graham or Glamour was doing presented any harm to the public.
  • Sending child protective services to Graham’s home in a not-so-veiled threat based on an entirely fictitious “report” of child neglect that was allegedly based on an “anonymous” report from someone who never actually witnessed Graham do anything wrong.

“The individual defendants, any one of them, could have stopped the persecution of Graham, but not a single person stepped in to do the right thing,” the lawsuit contends. “Instead, each individual Defendant continued to scheme of harassment, intimidation, bullying and borderline extortion developed by the Defendant State of Oregon and perpetuated by Defendant Kate Brown, who viewed Graham’s attempts to provide for her family as “unfortunate” and “irresponsible”. Under no circumstances is the conduct described in paragraph 121 acceptable conduct, and the fact that not one single individual Defendant stood up and tried to put a stop to the outrageous conduct is evidence of the individual Defendants’ intent to cause harm – severe emotional distress – to Graham. The individual Defendants know better, but they did nothing,”