ORDOJ Deposition p.2: "TYFYS is stupid"
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: so Brother Isaac, any time you wish to take a break, um, please just let me know. This is not meant to be an inquisition. I'll give you, uh, kind of a map about where I think this will go, and you can, uh, let me know if you want a lunch break during that time.
I wanna follow up on some things, um, that you said earlier, um, and then we'll talk about your complaint. Okay? Okie dokie. Um, so, um, in response to some of the earlier things you talked about, did you ever attend a town meeting or town hall for, um, the Veterans Affairs- Yeah ... um, group?
Logan M Isaac: The, uh, Oregon Department of Veterans Affairs held a town hall, I wanna say in June, in which I had a question that I posed, which was recorded and, and is on their YouTube.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Okay. On whose YouTube?
Logan M Isaac: ODVA.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Okay. [00:01:00] Um, is the complete, um, record on the, uh, of the town hall on that YouTube meeting?
Logan M Isaac: Probably. I don't know.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Okay. Um, well then let me ask you what you do know. What question is it that you asked during that town hall?
Logan M Isaac: I probably asked Nakia Daniels, uh, what could be done about the lack of enforcement of s- military civil rights
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: And who is Nakea Daniels?
Logan M Isaac: She filed a racist remarks complaint against me to Oregon State Police in response to a later thingy. She's the director of the ODVA, I think
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: And when you asked your question, what response did you get?
Logan M Isaac: It was generally positive
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Do you remember the specifics of the s- of the response?
Logan M Isaac: I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts she thanked me for my [00:02:00] service
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Do you remember anything else?
Logan M Isaac: No. I remember the stupid parts.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Well, you clearly, you remembered something, so you call it stupid, but tell me what you remembered.
Logan M Isaac: I did.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Okay. What did you, what do you remember about your, uh, attendance at the, um, uh, at, at that town hall meeting? I think I just told you. No, you didn't. What do you remember about your attendance at the Oregon, uh, uh, Veterans Administration Town Hall? What did you say? What did people say to you?
Logan M Isaac: Yeah, I answered that already.
I definitely attended. I don't remember specifically, but I would defer to the ODVA's YouTube. I don't know if I have it myself, but that's all I can tell you.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Um, well, when you refer me to a YouTube, that doesn't help me remember or know what you said. What I [00:03:00] want to know is what you remember right now as you sit here.
What do you remember?
Logan M Isaac: I told you. I probably made mention of military civil rights, lack of enforcement at the federal level, and I received generally positive responses.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: But what were those responses? Generally positive means nothing. What were those generally responsive responses?
Logan M Isaac: I said generally positive responses.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: And what were they?
Logan M Isaac: So you don't seem to understand military culture, or maybe, maybe it's something else. I don't know. Um, when I say generally positive, uh, glad-handing. People were patting me on the back, thanking me for my service without actually giving a substantive response. That is as specific an answer I can give you.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: You said you probably had some stupid stuff that you remembered. What stupid stuff did you remember?
Logan M Isaac: Thank you for your service is stupid
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Anything else?
Logan M Isaac: Lots of stuff was [00:04:00] stupid, but that's what you asked.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Anything else stupid that you remember from the town hall meeting?
Logan M Isaac: Nope. I've already answered that
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: When you saw Matt Keating at the In-N-Out, what do you remember about the interaction?
Logan M Isaac: I don't have to remember much 'cause it's on video, so I don't remember much.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Why is it on video?
Logan M Isaac: Protected activity, freedom of the press, freedom of speech.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: No. Are you the one that recorded it?
Logan M Isaac: It's on my channel. I'll take responsibility for it.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Are you the one who recorded it?
Logan M Isaac: I take responsibility for the recording.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Sir, uh, uh, brother, that's not my question. My question is, are you the one who recorded the meeting?
Logan M Isaac: You already have an answer to that question. It's not my place to say other than that I take responsibility for it.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: [00:05:00] Uh, it is your place to say because this is the deposition.
Under the First Amendment, actually- My question to you is, are you the one who recorded the meeting, the interaction, uh, with Matt Keating at the In-N-Out restaurant?
Logan M Isaac: So you haven't seen the video?
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Um, this is not your opportunity to ask questions. Right. It's my opportunity, my opportunity to say to you, did you...
Are you the one who made the recording?
I've already said what I'm gonna say Okay, and the record will reflect that. Um, what do you remember you saying to Matt Keating then?
Logan M Isaac: I don't know. It's on video, so luckily I don't have to remember. Neither do you. You can look it up.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Did, did you know that Matt Keating was gonna be at In-N-Out that day?
Logan M Isaac: No.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Um, did you take your video phone with the anticipation that you [00:06:00] would see Matt Keating at the In-N-Out that day?
Logan M Isaac: No, I have my phone on me all the time.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: And do you, uh, record all interactions you have with people in the legislature?
Logan M Isaac: No, I don't think so. I don't feel endangered or at risk most times, but since being blown up by Renee Perry and Shelley Boshart Davis, yeah, I do.
I record much more frequently.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: So when you saw Matt Keating at the In-N-Out office, you felt, um, threatened? Is that what you're saying?
Logan M Isaac: No, I did not say that.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Well then why did you, uh, record your interaction?
Logan M Isaac: Protected activity. It's my right.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Um, you exercise that protected activity, um, uh, at times of your own choosing, correct?
Logan M Isaac: Uh, it is-- That is correct. There is a pattern-
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: And- ... for
Logan M Isaac: anybody who's looking ...
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: why did you choose to [00:07:00] exercise that right, as you say, on that interaction with Matt Keating?
Logan M Isaac: Uh, call it a trauma response
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: And the trauma that you are referring to is what?
Logan M Isaac: Deprivation of rights
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Are you saying that because, um, Renee Perry interacted with you at the legislature, um, uh, you felt like your rights were, uh, uh, uh, were being deprived?
Logan M Isaac: I'm confident that Renee Perry was trying to deprive me of rights because she said so in the interaction.
She was afraid of accountability- Is that the- ... after I mentioned... Excuse me. She mentioned, I mentioned accountability, and she agreed after I said The Oregonian. She is afraid of my First Amendment right to freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Yeah. And is that the reason that you started to record Matt Keating when you saw him at the In-N-Out restaurant?
Logan M Isaac: No, I don't think so. [00:08:00]
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Do you know why you started to record him at the In-N-Out restaurant?
Logan M Isaac: I don't need anybody's permission to exercise my rights.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: I wanna know why you did it.
Logan M Isaac: I've already told you.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: No, you've just made a general statement. Why did you decide to exercise your rights then and you didn't exercise your right of free speech when you were at the counter of In-N-Out?
Well, we- You chose to record Matt Keating. Why?
Logan M Isaac: He's a public official. His name tag id- identified him as such, and it's a fundamental right of Americans to petition their government and other publics officials for redress of wrongs. Again, my federal rights. That is a self-contained answer.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: And did you believe that you would get a hostile response from Matt Keating?
Logan M Isaac: No.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: So was recording Matt Keating a proactive response?
Logan M Isaac: I don't know, I don't know how to answer that question.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: [00:09:00] Did you start recording him before he said anything to you?
Logan M Isaac: I don't know. You'd have to check the video
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Did you start recording the clerk at In-N-Out restaurant?
Logan M Isaac: She's probably in there, yeah. The one that asked us to stop?
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: No, I'm asking about the clerk who took your order at In-N-Out restaurant.
Logan M Isaac: I have no reason to record an employee of In-N-Out.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Okay. So what was your reason to record Matt Keating at In-N-Out?
Logan M Isaac: Objection. Form, repetitiveness. I'll say again, he is a public official. It's my right. I don't need permission. I don't need a reason.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: So do you record all interactions that you have with public officials?
Logan M Isaac: No
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Do you remember what you said to Matt Keating?
Logan M Isaac: Not offhand.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Do you believe that a public official has an obligation to interact with all members of the public in [00:10:00] public places?
Logan M Isaac: I think I generally agree with that statement.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Do you believe that you have a right to go up to a public official in a, uh, space that's not that, uh, that he is present for private purposes?
Logan M Isaac: He was in a public place. He wasn't in a private place. And any s- Yeah. So- Any definition of private is going to have to bump up against the fact that In-N-Out asked me to stop, and I stopped. Okay. I respond to people's rights. I don't obstruct them.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: So you believe that you responded to his right not to be interrupted?
Logan M Isaac: If he doesn't want to be a public official, he doesn't need to take public money. Okay. And- He was at a public, a public restaurant that is- And you said- ... required under law to provide public accommodation. If Matt Keating thought that he had a private right to privacy, he could have stepped out, and he did not.
In fact, I stopped recording not when he asked me [00:11:00] to, but when the In-N-Out, which is the private owner of that property, asked me to. Because again, I know my rights, and I exercise them.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: And did you believe that the owner or the representative of In-N-Out had the right to ask you to, um, stop engaging in the interaction that you had with Matt Keating?
Logan M Isaac: That's not why I stopped. I was trying to be nice
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Trying to be nice to whom?
Logan M Isaac: An employee at, uh, In-N-Out
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Do you believe that the, uh, the extent of your interaction with the employee, uh, uh, included, uh, being polite to other customers?
Logan M Isaac: Can you say that again? It
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Sure. Do you believe that the right of the employee at In-N-Out includes the right for you to be polite to [00:12:00] other customers?
Logan M Isaac: I think you and I have a different, a fundamentally possibly opposed definition to public service. We may. So I don't know how to answer that question.
Yeah. Well- 'Cause it seems to me to be self-evident. You said you're a lawyer, and I know you're supposed to, like, play some game to try and get me to say something that I'll regret later, but the grammar of it just isn't matching up. Okay. So I need, like, more specific questions, or I need to know what it is that we don't disagree on.
Was Matt Keating on payroll when he, on his lunch hour, as a public official wearing his name tag, you think he had some private right? And he does. If he had asked me to stop recording or if he'd walked away, that would've been one thing. But he did not walk away, as the video will show. I did the polite thing.
I don't have to do the polite thing, but I did do the polite thing.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: And is it your belief that, um, engaging in a conversation that is so [00:13:00] disruptive to the, uh, employee of In-N-Out That that interaction is included in your right, uh, to s- uh, e- exercise First Amendment
Logan M Isaac: Objection. Form compound. You need to simplify it.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: I'll simplify it, but sir, it is my deposition. My deposition means I get to ask you the questions. The questions that you answer are not, um, self-selected. You are supposed to answer all of the questions. Do you believe that your right of s- of First Amendment protection extends to annoying a clerk, a representative of a public facility?
Logan M Isaac: Nobody has a right to enforce their feelings. So you said annoying, you said disturbance. Those are all subjective assessments of which I have not been made aware. When I was made aware, I responded to a, a private employee. Matt [00:14:00] Keating is fundamentally different
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: So you don't believe that your interaction with Matt Keating was annoying to anybody other than Mr.
Keating?
Logan M Isaac: I don't know. You'd have to ask them.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Well, the employee came up to you and asked you to stop, didn't she?
Logan M Isaac: Yes.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: And you obliged?
Logan M Isaac: Correct.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: You were not aware that she, that your, the elevation of your conversation extended to her?
Logan M Isaac: Only once she asked me, that's correct
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Now I wanna go to the complaint that you have, uh, written. Um, Alice, it's, um, the complaint. It's a long exhibit. It will be for the purpose of this deposition, exhibit three[00:15:00]
So if you'll go to page six of, of that, um, exhibit. Can you scroll to page six?
So Brother Isaac, can you read that?
Logan M Isaac: Uh, which part?
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: So under the causes of action, I'm gonna be talking to you about paragraph 41.
Logan M Isaac: O- go ahead. Okay
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Can you read that?
Logan M Isaac: Yeah.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: I wanna know what you mean by, um, adverse actions including A, cancellation of [00:16:00] SJM-1 hearing on January 27th, 2025
Logan M Isaac: Yeah, Manning seems to have been retaliating for my protected activity
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Is that your conclusion?
Logan M Isaac: Uh, no, it's not a conclusion. It's
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: a claim. What is it?
Logan M Isaac: It's a claim.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: It's right there on the piece of paper. What, what statement do you have that supports that, um, this was, uh, an adverse action taken in retaliation?
Logan M Isaac: Well, he called the Oregon State Police on me, uh, without factual predicate.
Um, he probably doesn't like me, and he confuses me with protected activity, uh, to benefit our shared protected class. So a reasonable person could infer from his silence and cancellation of a, uh, a bill that could protect our entire protected community, [00:17:00] seems like he just has this petty little disagreement, and he's using it to fuck, uh, all of his buddies.
Sorry, that was a military term. I'll say Blue Falcon from now on
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: S- so that is your conclusion based on your assessment of what happened, correct?
Logan M Isaac: It is. That is a claim in a federal complaint.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: And it's a claim in a federal complaint based on your assumption, correct?
Logan M Isaac: Based on facts and deduction, it is a claim that is being explored- Um- ... actively in discovery.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Okay. Uh, deduction is not a fact.
I didn't say it was. Deduction is your conclusion of what you saw of Senator Manning. So would you agree that what you concluded regarding Senator Manning's actions is speculation?
Logan M Isaac: Uh, first, deduction is not a conclusion. You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of formal logic. [00:18:00] Second, could you respeat the, repeat the question?
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Uh, would you, uh, court reporter, can you play it back, please?
court reporter: One moment. Can the exhibit be closed for a moment so I can share mine? My audio? Thank you. One moment, please[00:19:00]
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: So would you agree that what you concluded regarding Senator Manning's actions is speculation?
Logan M Isaac: No
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: You also say in, uh, I'm gonna ask for the dep- for the exhibit to be put up again on the screen
In number B, a one-year office ban. Are you referring to the, uh, letter from, um, uh, Representative Boshart Davis where she says that you are no longer permitted to visit her office, um, for, uh, a year until February 2026?
Logan M Isaac: You mean letter B, and secondly, are you asking for the referent of that sentence?
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: I'm asking what you are meaning when [00:20:00] you take, when you refer to an adverse action described as a one-year office span On February 7th, 2025
Logan M Isaac: The referent object of that clause, yes, it is the office ban dated February 7th, 2025.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: That's the office ban that was in the letter issued by, uh, Senator, uh, Representative Boshart Davis, correct?
Logan M Isaac: Yes.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Um, and in that, um, letter she says that you may contact her office, correct?
Logan M Isaac: I think so, but the letter will have to speak for itself.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Yes. And when the letter speaks for itself and says, "You are free to communicate with my office through alternative channels such as e- as electronic mail or the United States Postal Service," she provides you with alternative means to visit her office, [00:21:00] correct?
Logan M Isaac: She seems to assume I need her permission for my rights. That is a false premise.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Yes, I understand that's your position. Um, when y- uh, you say on letter C, 41 C, ca- Capitol-wide escort restrictions, what are you talking about?
Logan M Isaac: The referent object to that clause of your sentence refers to the Capitol ban issued by Brett Haynes on that date.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: And those Capitol ban restrictions that are contained in the, um, letter that he authored on February 21st, 2025, that would have been, um, exhibit two, when he, um, told you that if you wanted to visit the office, you could by providing notice to the Oregon State Police, correct?
Logan M Isaac: Could you state the question again?
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: When you talk about these restrictions, you're talking about the letter on [00:22:00] February 21st authored by, um, Brett Ha- Brett Haines, correct?
Logan M Isaac: I've answered that, yes.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Okay. And that, um, notice provides restrictions, um, uh, to visiting, which include notice to the Oregon State Police, correct?
Logan M Isaac: That letter seeks to impose unlawful restrictions that are in violation of my federal rights.
Luckily for the Supremacy Clause, Brett Haines does not have the authority to restrict my rights without factual predicate.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Yeah, I understand that's your position. Um, so, uh, in the exhibit 41, letter D, the retaliatory suppression of, um, Senate Bill 1057. What do you mean by that?
Logan M Isaac: Uh, I earlier referenced that James Manning seems to have taken his own personal dislike of my advocacy and protected activity, and blue [00:23:00] falconed the entire military community in America because...
Or no, that was SGM One. Well, yeah, SGM One too. So I think that's a yes to your question
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Um, well, the question was not a yes, the question was what do you mean by retaliation, retaliatory suppression of SB, um, 1057?
Logan M Isaac: I have-
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Um, so you're telling me that the retaliatory, uh, suppression of SB 1057 is, uh, uh, directly related to Senator Manning, correct?
Logan M Isaac: Yeah, let me read directly from the production that I received last night from Tracy White, in which Brad Brainard is receiving messages from Brett Haynes in reference to James Manning. Ma- quote, Man- this is Isaac, L-A-C-S-D-T-491. Quote, "Chair Manning has made it clear he does not want Logan before the committee again."
End quote. Brad [00:24:00] Brainard responded to Kevin Ranchick, quote, "He has not been pr- trespassed or otherwise prohibited from visiting." End quote. So I believe it is a matter of fact now that Manning has a personal dislike of me and how I engage in protected activity, and is retaliating not just against me, but our entire shared class.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: I understand that's your position. My question- It's a pretty strong
Logan M Isaac: position.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Yeah. But my question is that- It's in papers ... that's what you're referring to when you say retaliatory sup- suppression of SB 1057, correct?
Logan M Isaac: It sure seems that way.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Okay.
Logan M Isaac: I would love to make sure that Manning's Gmail was searched, but I'm still waiting on production.
So until I get- Did
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: you,
Logan M Isaac: did you tell- ... until I
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: have the
Logan M Isaac: opportunity to disprove that hypothesis, that is a perfectly reasonable-
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Yeah. I unders- ... assumption ... I understand that is a position you continue to take. Um- Because it's a strong one ... you told me that Senator, you told me that Senator Thatcher, um, supported, uh, s- uh, sponsored [00:25:00] Senate Bill 1057, correct?
Logan M Isaac: Uh, yeah
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Um, do you have any evidence that Senator Thatcher suppressed Senate Bill 1057?
Logan M Isaac: No, I have evidence that Kim Thatcher was told by Manning basically the same, that Manning has-
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: What evidence, what evidence do you have that, uh, Senator Manning told Senator Thatcher to- Counsel has- ... um, re- repress, um, Senate Bill 1057?
Logan M Isaac: Uh, Senate, or, um, counsel already has that evidence. I defer to it. What,
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: what evidence? Tell me what evidence you have.
Logan M Isaac: An email from Kim Thatcher stating that James Manning killed the bill because he didn't like the way I was engaging in my protected activity.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: And do you believe that Senator Thatcher retaliated against you-
Logan M Isaac: No
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: by not supporting the bill?
Logan M Isaac: What reason do I have to believe that? Why would I believe that? [00:26:00]
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: I'm asking you the question. It's a yes or no question.
Logan M Isaac: That's not entirely true.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Okay. Do you believe that Senator Thatcher suppressed Senate Bill 1057?
Logan M Isaac: No. I have no reason to believe that. If I get information that suggests it, I might, but I have no such information
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Um, I'd like to go to page two, please
Uh, no, excuse me, page seven of... I'm, uh, I'm misdirecting you. It's page seven of the complaint
Para- can you see that?
Logan M Isaac: Which part? Yeah,
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: I can see it. Um, uh, can you see it? Okay. I'm going specifically to paragraph 47.
Logan M Isaac: Yeah. [00:27:00]
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: And you, uh, allege that defendants deprived plaintiff of his right of due process, procedural due process under the 14th Amendment through a one-year office ban, Capitol-wide escort requirements.
Those two things we've already discussed, correct?
Logan M Isaac: Okay.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Is there anything else regarding A and B that you wish to add to the record?
Logan M Isaac: I, I can't think of anything right now.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Okay. So you believe that the one-year office ban and the Capitol-wide escort requirements, um, deprived you of procedural due process.
Is this correct?
Logan M Isaac: I mean, I could check it against the Constitution. You want me to read it into the record?
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: No, sir. Oh, okay. I'm simply... Oh, excuse me. Yeah. No, brother. Um, I'm simply asking you if you believed that the defendants deprived the plaintiff of your right of procedural due process through the one-year office ban and through the, [00:28:00] uh, Capitol-wide escort requirements.
Logan M Isaac: Why would I not... Why would I put it in the federal complaint if I didn't believe it? That's a ridiculous question.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: I'm not asking about your modification. I'm asking you- ... if that's what you believe.
Logan M Isaac: Motivation. Modification is a different thing.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: S- Brother Isaac, do you believe that the one-year office ban, which came with notice and alternative means, deprived you of your due process right?
Logan M Isaac: Of course I do. Any reasonable- A- ... person would, would interpret a restriction on my rights as a restriction on my rights.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: And do you believe that the Capitol-wide escort requirements that came with notice and with alternative means to enter, um, the legislature deprived you of your procedural due process right?
Logan M Isaac: Yeah, you and I have a different reading of the Constitution. And mine's- Yeah ... a pretty plain reading. I don't- I'm not sitting behind specialization that, like, has all these weird privatized [00:29:00] word, like, yeah.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Okay. Now, uh, 47 subset C, official characterization of plaintiff as dangerous in public legislative communications is not something we've talked about.
What official characterization of you as dangerous were made in public legislature communications?
Logan M Isaac: Uh, the first one that drops to mind is Brett Kane's characterization in his letter without any pr- factual predicate
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Which letter by Brett Haines? Is that the letter that was exhibit two?
Logan M Isaac: I don't know.
You're tracking the exhibits. There's
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: only one letter by Brett Haines. Well, exhibit two is the, the letter that's dated February 21st, 2025, which starts, uh- Yes, that's the one ... your... Is that the one that you're talking about?
Logan M Isaac: Yep.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: So that's an official, um, uh, a characterization of you as dangerous, correct? Is that what you b- you believe?
Logan M Isaac: Yeah. [00:30:00] Could you look and tell me if that's on capital letterhead?
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Well, you could see it too Not on my screen It's, it's under legislative administ- we'll put it on the screen. We don't wanna
Alice, it's exhibit two
So this is the official characterization of you as dangerous in public legislative communications. Is this correct?
Logan M Isaac: Yeah, I'm reading... Yeah, that's-- it's accusing me of using threatening language, berating, disruption, and alarm. Okay. And it provides no factual basis from which a reasonable person could actually submit that to any kind of logical reasoning.
And your clients, furthermore, have not identified any actual factual predicate other than just fiat. We say it, so it's so. [00:31:00] Fiat is a Latin word that means by command, and only the emperor could issue a fiat. You're not an emperor, are you?
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: So, uh, uh, my question to you then, other than the letter from Brett Haines, what other official, uh, characterization are you referring to in, um, paragraph forty-seven, subset C?
Logan M Isaac: Is the Shelley Boshart Davis letter, is that on official letterhead?
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: It's exhibit one, um, Alice, if you want to, um, put that up so that, um Brother Isaac can see it
Logan M Isaac: Oh, yeah. That's official too
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Okay. So the two letters that we've talked about are the letters that you think are official characterization of you as dangerous in public legislature [00:32:00] communications. Is that correct?
Logan M Isaac: That's not the only ones, but those are a few, yeah
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Well, no, I'd like to hear what the others are. You've, you've listed two. We've talked about those two. What other ones?
Logan M Isaac: That's not entirely correct. You're asking me a closed-ended question, and I am expanding that question for you. Is the BOLO on official letterhead?
Are- Uh,
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: well, are you listing, uh, what you are talking about BOLO as, um, an, a official characterization in public legislative communications? What are you talking about?
Logan M Isaac: I've listed at least three of them
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: What three?
Logan M Isaac: The BOLO, the Haynes letter, and the Bos- Boshart Davis letter. Well,
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: you've listed two. What are you talking about when you say BOLO?
Logan M Isaac: Be on the lookout, that was issued at some point during this time. I was being actively monitored by a state in [00:33:00] our union without factual predicate. That is a prima facie deprivation of constitutional right.
If you don't have a right to monitor me, you don't have a right to monitor me. Or I'm sorry, if you don't have a reason, you have to, as the government, provide a reason. What is the reason for all the production of these documents? I don't know. Maybe a jury can help me figure it out. So-
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: So you've listed the- In answer to your
Logan M Isaac: closed question, I've listed three.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Yeah, and I- If you need to- I- Are you finished?
Logan M Isaac: Not
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: really. May I? Well, okay. No, I don't wanna cut you off. You may go ahead. Yeah. Continue. What else ha- what else do you consider to be official characterization of you as dangerous in public legislative communications? You've listed three. We agree with that.
You've listed three. What other ones?
Logan M Isaac: Almost any production that I've seen carries an official characterization, and s- therefore, I'm not going to list a [00:34:00] restrictive number in answer to a closed question. Everything that I've gotten in discovery is now on the public record, right? That's official. So choose your adventure, whichever...
All of them. All of them would be official.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Well, the problem with that is that this is your lawsuit, and this is my, uh, ability to find out what you're going to say to prove your lawsuit. And simply saying, "The record will prove it," is not very helpful to you. Right. But- Would you like to be helpful to you and state more specifically which official public legislative communications that you're referring to as interfering with your procedural due process rights?
Logan M Isaac: The shortest answer, and I'll give it: all of them. Final answer.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Okay[00:35:00]
Um, Alice, would you go to, um, page eight of this exhibit, please?
Brother Isaac, can you read that or should we blow it up a little bit more?
Logan M Isaac: I can read it, but I'm not sure which-
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Okay ... specific part. I will point you to it. Under claim four, the prospective injunctive relief, you talk about, uh, uh, paragraph 56, "Defendants in their official capacities continue to enforce unconstitutional restrictions that impede plaintiff's First Amendment petitioning rights and due process [00:36:00] rights."
I want to make sure that I understand what you are claiming to be unconsti- unconstitutional restrictions. Are you talking about the restriction to not go to, um, uh, Representative Boshart Davis's office?
Logan M Isaac: Yes
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: And you believe that's unconstitutional?
Logan M Isaac: Yes.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Are you talking about the restriction to, um, provide notice before you, uh, uh, go into the legislature, um, premises?
Logan M Isaac: Yes.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: And you believe that that restriction that came with notice to you and alternative means is unconstitutional. Is that correct?
Logan M Isaac: Uh, can you make that a shorter question? I-
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Do you believe [00:37:00] that the, uh, restriction that you must notify the Oregon State Police- Oh, yeah ... which provided plenty of- You can finish. The answer's yes ... opportun- W- which, um... Wait till I finish the question, please. Which provides notice to you about how to notify the Oregon State Police that you're going to visit the legislature, do you believe that that's an unconstitutional restriction of your procedural, uh, uh, uh, uh, that is a pro- uh, uh, uh, cons- constitutional restriction of your right?
Logan M Isaac: There are two clauses at least to what you've just said. The first clause I would answer readily yes to. The second clause is unnecessary and is meant to protect the state from its own people, which is, yes, that is unconstitutional. I'll read into the record Amendment 14, which impinges... It w- directly relates to the KKK Enforcement Acts, which I am using as a basis for my claim.
"No state shall make or [00:38:00] enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." You're a lawyer, Jill. You tell me.
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Well, since you, uh, request that, um, I refer to you a- as, um, Brother Isaac, I would prefer that you refer to me as Ms. Schneider.
Logan M Isaac: Miss or Mrs.?
Jill Schneider, ORDOJ: Do not call me by my first name.
