OREGON:
I am writing to notify you of a fascinating case-study that I conducted on the operation of the state courts, in Oregon. There is no doubt that a judicial dictatorship operates at Multnomah County Court (Presiding Judge, Judith Matarazzo; see later). This state of affairs has been brought about by the operation of a court rule, SLR 7.045.
What is SLR 7.045? This rule explains to any member of the general public (lawyers and pro se litigants) what they must do to remove (”recuse”) a judge who they believe to be malicious or biased.
However, the provisions of SLR 7.045 are written to make that impossible, even for a lawyer. In this way, corrupt judges protect themselves and deny the people of Oregon a fair trial.
The detail of rule 7.045 is available online, by way of a search engine query. When you check the rule you will find that in order to recuse a judge any member of the public must do the following impossible tasks:
Report any concerns to the court in writing on the day of the judge’s assignment to the case. As well as the obvious unreasonableness this term means that judges are impervious to censure throughout the proceedings;
Produce three separate legal documents within 24 hours of notifying the court:
An order
An affidavit. An affidavit must be notarized. However, it takes 48 hours to organize a notary public’s appearance at a place such as FedEx.
A motion;
Each document should meet the court’s requirements for format and presentation. Obviously, 24 hours is not a sufficient time allowance even if a notary public could be found within 24 hours;
If a member of the public (or pro se litigant) makes an error, then the rule threatens to bring sanctions upon them, “including” economic sanctions.
There are many severe problems with the justice system. This rule is something that can, and must, be changed. The wider question is then one of where else in Oregon does this fraudulent rule exist?
Judge Judith Matarazzo. It is not surprising that Multnomah is a remarkably corrupt courthouse. The Presiding Judge is Judith Matarazzo. In 2017, the County DA’s office decided to steer criminal cases away from Judith, saying publicly that she is not “fair and impartial” (OregonLive, June 21, 2017). The DA’s complaints stretched back to 2008. Yet, she is now a Presiding Judge, appointed in the March of 2022. It is a state of affairs that invites your organization to act in the public interest: Abolish this rule and replace it with a rule that coheres with Federal Law (28 USC, s. 455). The correct rule would operate in every state courthouse in Oregon.
Challenging the rule - “a facial challenge”. SLR 7.045 affects everybody in the same way. This means that this issue is open to a facial challenge. Any individual or organization may challenge the rule at any time. I will be writing to Multnomah Court on this matter, and I expect to file a facial challenge to this rule, pursuant to SLR 1.050(1)(b). Then, the state Supreme Court plays a most important role in solving this because the Supreme Court must approve SLRs. It remains to be seen what the higher courts and the state and federal DA’s offices will say about this. Previous experience predicts yet more obstruction and fraud.
Wherever rule 7.045 exists it is profanely illegal. It contradicts the essence of a justice system, violating each and every person’s Constitutional right to a fair trial.
I am writing to notify you of a fascinating case-study that I conducted on the operation of the state courts, in Oregon. There is no doubt that a judicial dictatorship operates at Multnomah County Court (Presiding Judge, Judith Matarazzo; see later). This state of affairs has been brought about by the operation of a court rule, SLR 7.045.
What is SLR 7.045? This rule explains to any member of the general public (lawyers and pro se litigants) what they must do to remove (”recuse”) a judge who they believe to be malicious or biased.
However, the provisions of SLR 7.045 are written to make that impossible, even for a lawyer. In this way, corrupt judges protect themselves and deny the people of Oregon a fair trial.
The detail of rule 7.045 is available online, by way of a search engine query. When you check the rule you will find that in order to recuse a judge any member of the public must do the following impossible tasks:
Report any concerns to the court in writing on the day of the judge’s assignment to the case. As well as the obvious unreasonableness this term means that judges are impervious to censure throughout the proceedings;
Produce three separate legal documents within 24 hours of notifying the court:
An order
An affidavit. An affidavit must be notarized. However, it takes 48 hours to organize a notary public’s appearance at a place such as FedEx.
A motion;
Each document should meet the court’s requirements for format and presentation. Obviously, 24 hours is not a sufficient time allowance even if a notary public could be found within 24 hours;
If a member of the public (or pro se litigant) makes an error, then the rule threatens to bring sanctions upon them, “including” economic sanctions.
There are many severe problems with the justice system. This rule is something that can, and must, be changed. The wider question is then one of where else in Oregon does this fraudulent rule exist?
Judge Judith Matarazzo. It is not surprising that Multnomah is a remarkably corrupt courthouse. The Presiding Judge is Judith Matarazzo. In 2017, the County DA’s office decided to steer criminal cases away from Judith, saying publicly that she is not “fair and impartial” (OregonLive, June 21, 2017). The DA’s complaints stretched back to 2008. Yet, she is now a Presiding Judge, appointed in the March of 2022. It is a state of affairs that invites your organization to act in the public interest: Abolish this rule and replace it with a rule that coheres with Federal Law (28 USC, s. 455). The correct rule would operate in every state courthouse in Oregon.
Challenging the rule - “a facial challenge”. SLR 7.045 affects everybody in the same way. This means that this issue is open to a facial challenge. Any individual or organization may challenge the rule at any time. I will be writing to Multnomah Court on this matter, and I expect to file a facial challenge to this rule, pursuant to SLR 1.050(1)(b). Then, the state Supreme Court plays a most important role in solving this because the Supreme Court must approve SLRs. It remains to be seen what the higher courts and the state and federal DA’s offices will say about this. Previous experience predicts yet more obstruction and fraud.
Wherever rule 7.045 exists it is profanely illegal. It contradicts the essence of a justice system, violating each and every person’s Constitutional right to a fair trial.
