Motion to Amend
On April 15, 2025, I filed a motion to amend and update my small claim against Reneé Perry. Here is that motion.
Your Honor,
After speaking with the Oregon Department of Justice last night, I would like to amend and update my claim against Reneé Perry, which I initially filed on March 4, 2025. I’ll try to keep to the facts as much as possible, which are as follows.
Perry is employed as the Chief of Staff by Oregon Representative Shelly Boshart Davis, my elected representative. I am a combat veteran with a 100% Disability Compensation rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs. I deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom from January, 2004 to February, 2005 and was discharged as an E-5 after six years of active service as an artilleryman.
On January 27, 2025, Perry deprived me of my First Amendment rights on a visit to my elected Representatives public office at the State Capitol. Within a few minutes of taking a seat in House Office 389, Perry threatened to “call [Oregon State Police] if you do not tone your voice down.” This was after accusing me of making threats and repeatedly raising her voice. There is no state or federal law limiting a person’s “tone” and the Government is barred from regulating protected expression using vague and overly broad restrictions. By using her position at the State Capitol, Perry operated “under color of” law to abridge my Constitutional rights to speech, assembly, and redress, a violation of 42 USC § 1983.
Despite Perry’s raised voice, false accusation, and general mistreatment, I left House Office 389 on good terms. District 15 Policy Director Dru Draper, present for the entire altercation, can attest to that fact. I would provide the Court with bodycam footage captured by Oregon State Trooper Brian Kolacz, but the State has denied multiple Public Records Requests. I have included those requests in this amended filing because, as the sole named defendant, the State cannot withhold exculpatory evidence; footage will show that my actions were unremarkable in light of the strict standard the State must meet in cases restricting federally protected expression.
You may be asking “Why is he taking this matter to small claims?” The answer is simple; I can’t find a lawyer to represent me. I’ve exhausted my three-call limit to the Oregon State Bar lawyer referral system and still have not found representation. As an unemployed homemaker to my family of four, I do not have the time or resources to litigate in open court. In comparison, the State has provided Perry with a taxpayer-funded Department of Justice paralegal, placing me at a clear disadvantage.
When I filed my complaint, it was about a private citizen abusing the privilege and responsibility of her public service. Section 1983 was written to protect American citizens from vigilantes like the Ku Klux Klan, that’s why 42 USC § 1983 is also known as The KKK Enforcement Act of 1871. By intervening on her behalf, the State of Oregon has made this case about a State’s right to shield vigilantes from federal law. It is therefore up to the State to articulate what government interest is possibly worth depriving a protected class of its Constitutional protections. If it cannot, then the Supremacy Clause proscribes the State from asserting an interest contrary to the supreme law of the land and the Department of Justice should remove itself.
Unless the State intends to withdraw its support of vigilantism, I ask that the Court compel the State to produce exculpatory video evidence it possesses. I also ask that the State provide justification for abridging my First Amendment rights before it moves forward or files any additional motions. Perry should not be allowed to benefit from her position unjustly by hiding behind a trained legal professional in small claims, where frivolous motions exact a disproportionate chilling effect on unequal litigants.
Attached:
