📺 Oregon Civil Rights Showdown: A Primer

A primer for anyone wanting to know more about the Oregon Civil Rights Showdown for GIJustice.

1. Background on the Three Cases

I’m going to try to give as concise an account of these civil rights cases as possible. There are three cases in total:

• Linn County: Isaac v. Oregon (also Isaac v. Renee Perry), which I filed first.
• Benton County: Two cases involving Shelley Boshart Davis and Brett Haynes (an Oregon legislative assistant).

All three defendants—Renee Perry, Shelley Boshart Davis, and Brett Haynes—are state employees paid by the state of Oregon. Shelley Boshart Davis is my representative in Oregon’s District 15, and I voted for her.

Because they are state employees, I only had their work addresses to serve them notice. I had to go to Marion County in Salem and pay to have the defendants served at their workplace on state grounds. However, the Marion County Sheriff cannot execute service on state property, so they had to pass the service off to Attorney General Dan Rayfield.

I don't have their personal home addresses, and I didn't want to hire a private investigator to find them. Passing it through the Attorney General is standard protocol.

2. DOJ Intervention and Substitution

This is where it gets interesting.

The Attorney General assigned the case to Assistant Attorney General Becky Miller. Because these are small claims cases, the Department of Justice (DOJ) cannot directly represent the defendants in court. However, they requested permission to appear alongside a non-attorney DOJ representative for all defendants in all three cases.

Additionally, the DOJ requested that the State of Oregon be named as the sole defendant in all three cases, substituting out the individual defendants. They sent these motions for all three cases at once while I was traveling back from vacation.

When I reviewed the filings, I discovered that a paralegal named Michael Hustleton—a public employee working for the Oregon DOJ—is the person appearing for the defendants. He is working this case on behalf of the State of Oregon to shield these individuals from liability under Title 42, Section 1983 of the U.S. Code.

3. Understanding Title 42, Section 1983

Section 1983 is also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. It was passed in April 1871 after the Civil War to protect American citizens—regardless of race or gender—from vigilantes. At the time, these vigilantes often operated as sheriffs, deputies, or police officers who used the "color of law" to enact their own version of justice, infringing on citizens' constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The federal government established Section 1983 to say: "No, you don't get to do that."

Under Section 1983, any individual acting under the "color of law, statute, custom, or tradition" who violates someone's constitutional rights acts as a vigilante and incurs personal liability. It allows citizens to sue government actors directly in civil court, even if the criminal justice system never charges them.

4. The Core Issue and Personal Liability

I was not physically harmed, nor was my property taken, but constitutional protections should not require harm to reach that level. That is why we have statutes against bias and intimidation—crimes that occur before someone deprives you of life, liberty, or happiness.

Section 1983 is critical because if you have good reason to believe someone is depriving you of your rights—such as speech, assembly, or petitioning for redress—you can sue them personally, regardless of their official position.

By intervening, the State of Oregon is essentially saying:

"We want to adopt the interest of these defendants. We are going to defend them and shield them from personal liability."

In Linn County, they succeeded. Within 24 hours, the Linn County judge granted the motion to name the State of Oregon as the sole defendant. The court effectively granted all of their requests.

5. "Color of Law" and Popular Sovereignty

All three cases are now proceeding with the State of Oregon defending actions that amounts to vigilante behavior—depriving me of my rights not based on actual law, but by citing the appearance of law.

My original complaint stemmed from an incident where Renee Perry threatened to call state troopers on me on state grounds. Furthermore, during a recent Linn County court appearance, a county employee called the sheriff on me.

This represents enforcement agents (law enforcement) and legislative/judicial actors teaming up to suppress the rights of a sovereign citizen. Popular sovereignty—the principle that "We the People" are the source of government power—is unique to American democracy. Yet here, government officials are abandoning constitutional boundaries once they obtain power.

Oregon is effectively signaling that this behavior is acceptable—that they will use the "color of law" to disguise unlawful acts. What law are these officers actually enforcing when called in these situations? As soon as police are summoned in this manner, the appearance of law is being used to mask rights violations.

The State of Oregon is disregarding the Supremacy Clause and federal civil rights to cut off a private citizen—and a veteran whose labor helped protect those freedoms.

If the State of Oregon can assert a right contrary to the Supremacy Clause to undermine the First Amendment, it sets a dangerous precedent. That is the broader implication built into this case.