Court filings for Isaac v. Manning et. al.
Michael McShane
📧 to McShaneATTN Court Deputy (sorry, I was not provided a name); I’m the self-represented plaintiff in Isaac v. Manning, et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-01159-MC. The Court granted my application to proceed in forma pauperis and screened the complaint. I was told a standard IFP
Michael McShane
ATTN Court Deputy (sorry, I was not provided a name); I’m the self-represented plaintiff in Isaac v. Manning, et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-01159-MC. The Court granted my application to proceed in forma pauperis and screened the complaint. I was told a standard IFP service
6-25-CV-01159-MC
Isaac v. Manning et al., No. 6:25-cv-01159-MC (D. Or.) is a federal civil-rights lawsuit against James Ivory Manning Jr., Shelly Boshart Davis, Renee Perry, and Doe defendants, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on July 3, 2025. Docket Text:
6-25-CV-01159-MC
Below you will find the names of parties sent Litigation Hold Notices (LHNs) for a federal civil rights lawsuit, Case No. 6:25-cv-01159-MC, either because they are explicitly named in my complaint or because evidence acquired in discovery may expose them to legal liability. LHNs are formal
6-25-CV-01159-MC
Isaac v. Manning et al., No. 6:25-cv-01159-MC (D. Or.) is a federal civil-rights lawsuit against James Ivory Manning Jr., Shelly Boshart Davis, Renee Perry, and Doe defendants, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on July 3, 2025. INTRODUCTION 1.
6-25-CV-01159-MC
Good morning. I am a part of the OSU Threat Assessment Team. We were reviewing a case involving Isaac. The community has learned through Isaac that he has been banned from the State Capital, but we do not know why. Is it possible to shed a little light as to
6-25-CV-01159-MC
In response to Perry's request for OSP intervention, OSP LT Casi Hegney pointed out the law is clear about protected speech. Hello Renee, I can offer information to help you understand how protective orders, stalking orders, and no-contact orders work. Protective orders / restraining orders – Civil process where
6-25-CV-01159-MC
In response to "Final demand: apologize", Renee Perry forwarded the email to Oregon State Police. Hello All, He is targeting me, and I am not okay with this. What are my options for a 'no-contact' order against him, as a state employee and/or regular
6-25-CV-01159-MC
On January 27, 2025, you deprived me of my Constitutional right to free speech. In recorded audio, you can be heard saying “I'm gonna call [Oregon State Police] if you do not tone your voice down.” As a civil servant employed by the public, you acted “under color
6-25-CV-01159-MC
The following email from the Editor of The Oregonian to the Oregon Legislative Administrator was acquired through discovery for Isaac v. Manning (6:25-cv-011159-MC). The nature of their preexisting relationship remains unknown, as is the motive for the contact. Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 08:34:42
Shelly Boshart Davis
On February 21, 2025, Oregon Legislative Administrator Brett Hanes informed me that “a decision to restrict your access has been made” the same week Senate Bill 1057 was introduced. (Senator Kim Thatcher introduced SB 1057 “on [my] behalf” on February 18th) Haines’ decision was premised upon the claim that my
Election 2024
The following included my email to Legislative Administrator Brett Hanes; 📧 Capitol “doesn’t belong to fragile elites” to Hanes[response to “Conditions” email] Sup Brett, cool name. Coupla things: Nowhere in your first paragraph do you specify any federal, state, or local laws I may have violated such that a