Isaac v. Hanes (25SC06254)

On February 21, 2025, Oregon Legislative Assistant Brett Hanes, a veteran, banned me from my State Capitol in Salem. His action represents a violation of the KKK Act of 1871 because if deprives me of my Constitutional rights to political speech, peaceful assembly, and petition my government.

On March 5, 2025, I filed the following complaint in the Benton County Small Claims Department (scroll down for additional case files and analysis);

Benton Case Files by date (click to download)

• 20250305 initial complaint

• 20250408 OR “Appearance”, Request to Appear on Behalf, Motion to be Sole Defendant

• 20250416 Change Venue Request

• 20250424 OR Motion to Dismiss

• 20250430 Motion to Expedite Change Venue (second request)

• 20250507 Motion to Disqualify and Change Venue (third request)

• 20250507 Dismissal of federal rights

• 20250528 Motion to Strike

—-

Analysis: Systematic Denial of Federal Civil Rights

Executive Summary

This case represents a textbook example of how Oregon state courts systematically violate federal civil rights by allowing state attorneys to manipulate small claims procedures to shield state employees from Section 1983 liability. The State's conduct demonstrates a coordinated effort to deny constitutional protections through procedural gamesmanship.

Constitutional Violations and Double Standards

1. Denial of Equal Protection (14th Amendment)

The Violation: State employees receive special legal representation unavailable to private citizens in small claims court, creating a two-tiered justice system.

The Double Standard: While private citizens must represent themselves in small claims court, state employees receive taxpayer-funded Oregon DOJ representation, fundamentally altering the balance of power the small claims system was designed to maintain.

Federal Rights Denied: Equal protection under law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

2. Obstruction of Section 1983 Civil Rights Claims

The Violation: Oregon courts allow state substitution that effectively immunizes individual state employees from personal liability under 42 USC 1983.

The Double Standard: Federal law creates personal liability for state employees who violate constitutional rights, yet Oregon courts routinely allow the State to substitute itself as defendant, nullifying this federal protection.

Federal Rights Denied: Right to seek redress against individual state actors who violate constitutional rights under color of state law.

3. Prosecutorial Misconduct - Evidence Withholding

The Violation: Assistant Attorney General Rebecca Maile systematically withheld material public records evidence relevant to plaintiff's claims.

Key Evidence of Misconduct:

• Violations of Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct (Rules 3.1 and 3.4)

The Double Standard: State prosecutors demand full disclosure from defendants while withholding exculpatory evidence themselves, violating basic due process principles.

Federal Rights Denied: Due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Procedural Manipulation and Bad Faith

1. Improper Motion to Dismiss in Small Claims

The Manipulation: State filed motion to dismiss based on Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure that explicitly don't apply to small claims proceedings.

Court Finding: Motion relied on "statutory law inapplicable to Small Claims proceedings and is prejudicial given the withholding of evidence."

2. False Certificates of Readiness

The Misconduct: Defense counsel filed certificates containing materially false statements about objections and meet-and-confer efforts.

Documented Falsehoods:

• Claimed "No objection has been served" when objections were served and acknowledged

• Claimed "reasonable efforts" to resolve objections when no efforts were made

Professional Ethics Violations: ORPC 3.3(a)(1) - prohibition on false statements to tribunal.

Systemic Pattern of Rights Violations

1. Judicial Bias and Appearance of Impropriety

• Court allowed inappropriate DOJ substitution without proper legal basis

• Judge refused disqualification after mishandling of procedural issues

• Court initially denied basic small claims procedures mandated by ORS Chapter 46

2. Denial of Fundamental Small Claims Protections

Oregon Law Violated: ORS 46.415 requires defendants to appear personally unless court grants permission for attorney representation.

Rights Denied: The informal, accessible justice system small claims courts were designed to provide.

Federal Preemption Issues

The Core Problem: Oregon's systematic shielding of state employees from Section 1983 liability directly conflicts with federal civil rights law.

Legal Framework:

• Testa v. Katt (US Supreme Court) requires state courts to hear federal civil rights claims

• Section 1983 creates personal liability specifically to ensure individual accountability

• State courts cannot nullify federal civil rights protections through procedural manipulation

Long-term Implications:

This case demonstrates Oregon's systematic violation of federal civil rights law and represents grounds for broader civil rights litigation challenging Oregon's small claims practices as applied to Section 1983 claims.

Conclusion

The State of Oregon, through its Department of Justice, has engaged in a coordinated campaign to deny federal civil rights protections through procedural manipulation, evidence withholding, and false statements to the court. This conduct violates both federal constitutional protections and Oregon's own professional responsibility rules, demonstrating the need for federal intervention to protect constitutional rights.

This analysis demonstrates how Oregon state courts systematically deny federal civil rights through procedural gamesmanship, creating a compelling case for federal court intervention and civil rights enforcement.