Motion to Sanction and Strike
Your Honor,
It has come to my attention that the State is trying to have my civil rights dismissed. I learned of their fourth filing not because AAG Maile or Michael Hoselton reached out in the interest of transparency, but because I happened to check the online docket at 4:00pm on Friday. That the State complains I “did not confer with” them (page 2, line 1) is a grotesque double standard employed to distract from the fact that they are a thundering Goliath picking a fight against a stay-at-home dad trying to access the liberties our Constitution secures.
The State wants the Court to believe their filings are in order “to preclude the necessity of a trial,” (page 1, line 24) That doesn’t add up, since it was the State which filed a “Request for Hearing” on April 8, 2025 despite ORS 46.455(3) affording them an option to ask for a trial. As they have not done that, and no trial is to be expected, I cannot help but infer their subsequent argumentation is less than fully credible. That’s why I can’t help but notice that the State has carefully omitted ORS Chapter 46, which governs Small Claims in Circuit Court, from all remaining statutory citations in the filing.
To the extent the State previously acknowledged the appropriate statute is ORS Chapter 46, their entire argument is rendered suspect by applying statutes from a different Title and Chapter. Setting their shifting explanations aside for the sake of openness, their argument for dismissal amounts to “lack of jurisdiction.” (page 2, line 23) Under ORS 46.560, jurisdiction is determined by “the county in which the defendants, or one of them, reside.” Whereas I technically reside in Benton County, that Circuit Court is eight miles further from my home than Linn. The second part of their argument is that I failed “to State Ultimate Facts Sufficient to Constitute a Claim.” (page 4, line 1) There is no such requirement in Small Claims, since ORS 46.415 is clear that “No formal pleadings other than the claim shall be necessary.”
Given these circumstances, I respectfully ask the Court to recognize the inconsistencies and omissions in the State’s filings for what they are: an attempt to overcomplicate and obstruct a process that is meant to be simple, accessible, and fair for ordinary citizens. I trust that the Court will uphold the integrity of the Small Claims system and deny the State’s motion so that this matter can proceed on its merits. Thank you for your time and careful consideration.
MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS AND TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
(WITH ATTACHED EXHIBITS)
Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to (1) impose sanctions on Assistant Attorney General Rebecca Maile for withholding material evidence in violation of her professional obligations, and (2) strike the Defendant’s pending Motion to Dismiss, which is based on erroneous application of statutory law.
I. Motion to Strike Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
The State has filed a misleading Motion to Dismiss based on claims that are directly contradicted by the very evidence currently being withheld.
Plaintiff asserts that:
The Motion to Dismiss is based on statutory law inapplicable to Small Claims, outlined in an attached letter, titled Exhibit 1.
Defendant’s withholding of public State records prejudices a co-equal branch of Government its ability to fairly evaluate the case;
In the interest of justice and fairness, the Motion to Dismiss should be struck as procedurally improper.
II. Motion for Sanctions
Assistant Attorney General Rebecca Maile has been informed that the State of Oregon is in possession of evidence that is directly material to the Plaintiff’s claims. This evidence is public record and has already been requested through the proper channels, which the State of Oregon has illegitimately denied. Plaintiff has requested that the video be produced, not merely as a matter of public record, but as relevant to an action at law,and has provided multiple written requests to Defendant’s counsel.
These requests have been ignored or denied without justification. Copies of these communications are attached as Exhibits 2 to 12.
This conduct, coupled with the State’s numerous motions, violates the ethical and legal obligations governing attorneys licensed to practice in Oregon, including:
Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 3.1 – Meritorious Claims and Contentions: prohibits frivolous motions;
Rule 3.4 – Fairness to Opposing Party: prohibits obstruction of access to relevant evidence.
Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 17 C(2) – Harassment and Delay: prohibits improper purpose;
Rule 17 C(4) – Evidentiary Support: prohibits assertions without evidence;
Rule 17 C(5) – Denial of Factual Assertion: prohibits denials contradictory to evidence.
Even within small claims court, these rules remain binding on all attorneys appearing in connection with a case, regardless of whether they appear in court.
Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to impose appropriate sanctions for this violation and to compel production of the withheld evidence by a public entity.
III. Relief Requested
Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
Strike the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as improper and prejudicial;
Sanction Assistant Attorney General Rebecca Maile for violating ORPC 3.1 and 3.3, and ORCP Rule 17 C(2), (4), and (5)
Compel production of public record evidence withheld by the State of Oregon;
Consider drawing an adverse inference from the State’s erroneous application of pertinent statute and continued refusal to disclose relevant evidence;
Grant any other relief the Court deems appropriate and just.
Conclusion
The State of Oregon, through its legal representatives, is not above the rules of fairness, transparency, and ethical conduct. The refusal of the State to release a public record of video evidence while simultaneously seeking dismissal of the case is an abuse of process that this Court has the authority—and duty—to correct.
Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court strike the Motion to Dismiss, grant the Motion for Sanctions, compel production of public record evidence, and provide any additional relief the Court finds just and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
Logan Martin Isaac
Dated: 4/28/2025
