Oregon Civil Rights Showdown

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

Transcript

It is Wednesday April 30th at 8:45 in the morning and I'm going to try and give as concise an account of these civil rights cases as possible there's three cases i'm listing them here one is currently in Lynn County uh Isaac v oregon also Isaac v renee Perry that's in Lynn which I filed first the second two are in Benton right now that is Shelley Bosart Davis and Brett Haynes the Oregon legislative assistant now all three of these Renee Perry uh Shelley Bosart Davis and Brett Haynes they're all employees they're paid by the state shelley Bosart Davis is my representative in district 15 of Oregon i voted for her but since they're paid by the state they are state employees including my representative and I only had their work address to serve them uh notice so I had to go to Marian County which is Salem pay them to serve the defendants on the at their workplace which is on state grounds but the Marian County Sheriff can't do that by crossing the threshold to state property they had to give it off to the attorney general attorney general Dan Rayfield I think now if I understand the process correctly all of that's just automatic uh I don't have their personal home addresses i don't want to p a private eye to find them so it had to go through the attorney general because it's just a process and this is where it gets good the attorney general assigned it to Assistant Attorney General Becky Mile now because it's a small claim they cannot represent the defendants in small claims but they can request to appear and appear in court with a non attorney uh representative of the Department of Justice for all the defendants which they requested in all three cases they also requested to uh be named the sole defendant the state of Oregon the sole defendant in all three cases and they sent all their motions to all three cases at once while I was on on vacation or coming back from vacation so as soon as I found it I discovered that a parallegal by the name of Michael Hustleton who is a Department of Justice employee public employee just like everybody else working for the state of Oregon he's the one who's appearing for the defendants or is working this case on behalf of the state of Oregon in shielding these defendants from 42 title 42 section uh 1983 of the US code so section 1983 is also known as the KKK enforcement act was passed in April of 1871 to protect American citizens black white male woman American citizens from vigilantes who at that time called themselves the Ku Klux Clan and who were frequently sheriffs or deputies or police officers and they would under color of law go out and enact their version of justice that infringed on a number of constitutional rights the pursuit of happiness liberty and life right and so the federal government uh after the Civil War they said when the Ku Klux Clan was trying to enact their version of justice the federal government said "No you don't get to do that." Section 1983 says any individual who under color of law statute or custom or tradition like our state laws like the federal law like the Constitution and the Ten Amendments anybody who pretends to be a person representing that the Constitution etc and who does something contrary to that is a vigilante and incurs a a a liability the this the language which I'll put up here is every person you can sue them in a civil court and have a civil claim even if the criminal justice system never comes after them so that is the enforcement act of 1871 the KKK enforcement act also known as section 1983 now I did not I was not physically harmed i was not uh my property wasn't taken but the nature of the constitution is that it shouldn't rise to that level there are things below this that happen before someone starts taking that step of depriving you of life liberty or happiness and that's why we have bias crimes we have intimidation crimes all these things that are lesser than life liberty and pursuit of happiness and so 1983 in vigilantism is important because section 1983 says if you have good reason to believe that someone is depriving you of say your right to speech assembly and petition of redress if they're doing that you can sue them in court that's what 1983 says you can s sue them personally regardless of their position so when the state of Oregon got involved through some process whatever they were in effect saying "Wait we want the interest that our defendants are asserting we want to be a part of that we're going to defend them we're going to shield them from a from whatever it is this guy Logan this private citizen whatever he's alleging we don't want this individual to be personally liable." And in Lynn they succeeded the Lynn County judge said granted the motion to be to name the state of Oregon as the sole defendant within 24 hours lynn also said yes to basically everything and so now this case all three cases are proceeding with the Oregon with the state of Oregon defending the interest of the defendant which is vigilantism which is taking my rights away from me not because of some law or statute but citing law and statute now remember my original complaint was Renee Perry threatened to call the state troopers on state grounds the enforcement agent of government she represents the legislative agent of government but it's all government and so what Perry did and with this happened in Lynn County Court yesterday or the day before yesterday I can't remember where they called the sheriff on me that is the government the enforcement agent and judicial and or legislative buddying up teaming up to oppress suppress the rights of the sovereign public agent public sovereignty popular sovereignty is the only thing that's unique in American democracy when you compare it to others that we the people are the source of their power but once they get power instead of using it through the Constitution and laws they're going to say "No we don't want to do that." Oregon is now saying vigilantism is okay that we're not going to enforce laws or statute but we're going to use the color of law the appearance of law to disguise what we really are enforcing and that's why I said the other day in after my encounter in Lynn what are the enforcement agents enforcing when Renee Perry called the state troopers when the Lynn County employee called the county sheriff what are they enforcing what law because as soon as the police are called someone has used the law to disguise potentially unlawful acts and the state of Oregon is saying "We don't give a [ __ ] about the supremacy clause we don't care about federal rights instead we want to cut a private citizen off and not just any private citizen a veteran whose labor produced this thing we call freedom." And that's why I've said in other videos that there is a self-destruct mechanism built into this case if the state of Oregon can assert a right contrary to the supremacy clause to undermine the Constitution the First Amendment who do you think would like to know that exists and who do you think would use it i don't want to find out the answer to that question but I do have some suspicions.