CORRUPTION AT COURT: A Public Notice (lawyers, salaries, legal)

[ClearWell]

Re: Corruption at Multnomah County Court (and elsewhere in Oregon).
Supplementary Local Rule 7.045 (“Motion for Change of Judge”)

There is no doubt that a judicial dictatorship operates at Multnomah County Court (Presiding Judge, Judith Matarazzo). This state of affairs has been brought about by the operation of a court rule, SLR 7.045
What is SLR 7.045? This rule explains to any member of the general public (lawyers and pro se litigants) what they must do to remove (”recuse”) a judge who they believe to be malicious or biased.

However, the provisions of SLR 7.045 are written to make that impossible, even for a lawyer. In this way, corrupt judges protect themselves and deny the people of Oregon a fair trial.


The detail of rule 7.045 is available online, by way of a search engine query. When you check the rule you will find that in order to recuse a judge any member of the public must do the following impossible tasks:
-Report any concerns to the court in writing on the day of the judge’s assignment to the case. If this 'first day' rule is missed it means that judges are above the law, and above the public, who pay their large salaries;
-Produce three separate legal documents within 24 hours of notifying the court:
An order;
An affidavit. An affidavit must be notarized. However, it takes 48 hours to organize a notary public’s appearance at a place such as FedEx;
A motion;
-Each document should meet the court’s requirements for format and presentation. Obviously, 24 hours is not a sufficient time allowance even if a notary public could be found within 24 hours;
-If a member of the public (or pro se litigant) makes an error, then the rule threatens to bring sanctions upon them, “including” economic sanctions.
There are many severe problems with the justice system. This rule is something that can, and must, be changed. The wider question is then one of where else in Oregon does this fraudulent rule exist?

Challenging the rule - “a facial challenge”. SLR 7.045 affects everybody in the same way. This means that this issue is open to a facial challenge. Any individual or organization may challenge the rule at any time. I will be writing to Multnomah Court on this matter, and I expect to file a facial challenge to this rule, pursuant to SLR 1.050(1)(b). Then, the state Supreme Court plays a most important role in solving this because the Supreme Court must approve SLRs. It remains to be seen what the higher courts and the state and federal DA’s offices will say about this. Previous experience predicts yet more obstruction and fraud.

Wherever rule 7.045 exists it is profanely illegal. It contradicts the essence of a justice system, violating each and every person’s Constitutional right to a fair trial.

[NW Crow]

Your objection to the rule seems reasonable in general terms.

But headlining it as corruption, calling them a dictatorship doing something "illegal" are all statements unproven here and probably at least somewhat detrimental to a gettinga full and fair review of the rule imo by the Courts, legislature or much of the public.

Just because the rule is objectionably tight to you does not necessarily make it illegal. The court and / or the legislature would have to deem it to be. They are duly given power by the Constitution to make those decisions even if one or many outside those positions do not find them constitutional or ethical.


"If this 'first day' rule is missed it means that judges are above the law, and above the public..."

No it doesn't. That is your opinion but you are probably going to have to win with legal arguments not political opinions.

If you have a specific objection, you may be asked to state that case and some may judge your specific case, though some or all the decisionmakers may not directly use it for their rule evaluation. It will likely take an objective legal finding on the general rule to produce a change, instead of or on top of a finding of your specific case, apparently not filed within existing rules.

[karlsch]

City-Data isn't the only forum where this has been posted. It seems he/she is joining various forums for the sole purpose of pasting it, apparently to make some sort of statement.

[2bpurrfect]

Originally Posted by NW Crow

Your objection to the rule seems reasonable in general terms.

But headlining it as corruption, calling them a dictatorship doing something "illegal" are all statements unproven here and probably at least somewhat detrimental to a gettinga full and fair review of the rule imo by the Courts, legislature or much of the public.

Just because the rule is objectionably tight to you does not necessarily make it illegal. The court and / or the legislature would have to deem it to be. They are duly given power by the Constitution to make those decisions even if one or many outside those positions do not find them constitutional or ethical.


"If this 'first day' rule is missed it means that judges are above the law, and above the public..."

No it doesn't. That is your opinion but you are probably going to have to win with legal arguments not political opinions.

If you have a specific objection, you may be asked to state that case and some may judge your specific case, though some or all the decisionmakers may not directly use it for their rule evaluation. It will likely take an objective legal finding on the general rule to produce a change, instead of or on top of a finding of your specific case, apparently not filed within existing rules.

he's not presenting his case here, just letting the public know what's going on. Giving his opinion in personal terms. Which is good. Glad to know about it.

[2bpurrfect]

Did you make any progress on this??? And BTW, i'm pretty sure there are Notary Publics who are available much sooner than 48 hours, and you can go to them, no need to meet at some store. Or some are also mobile and will come to you.

Originally Posted by ClearWell

Re: Corruption at Multnomah County Court (and elsewhere in Oregon).
Supplementary Local Rule 7.045 (“Motion for Change of Judge”)

There is no doubt that a judicial dictatorship operates at Multnomah County Court (Presiding Judge, Judith Matarazzo). This state of affairs has been brought about by the operation of a court rule, SLR 7.045
What is SLR 7.045? This rule explains to any member of the general public (lawyers and pro se litigants) what they must do to remove (”recuse”) a judge who they believe to be malicious or biased.

However, the provisions of SLR 7.045 are written to make that impossible, even for a lawyer. In this way, corrupt judges protect themselves and deny the people of Oregon a fair trial.


The detail of rule 7.045 is available online, by way of a search engine query. When you check the rule you will find that in order to recuse a judge any member of the public must do the following impossible tasks:
-Report any concerns to the court in writing on the day of the judge’s assignment to the case. If this 'first day' rule is missed it means that judges are above the law, and above the public, who pay their large salaries;
-Produce three separate legal documents within 24 hours of notifying the court:
An order;
An affidavit. An affidavit must be notarized. However, it takes 48 hours to organize a notary public’s appearance at a place such as FedEx;
A motion;
-Each document should meet the court’s requirements for format and presentation. Obviously, 24 hours is not a sufficient time allowance even if a notary public could be found within 24 hours;
-If a member of the public (or pro se litigant) makes an error, then the rule threatens to bring sanctions upon them, “including” economic sanctions.
There are many severe problems with the justice system. This rule is something that can, and must, be changed. The wider question is then one of where else in Oregon does this fraudulent rule exist?

Challenging the rule - “a facial challenge”. SLR 7.045 affects everybody in the same way. This means that this issue is open to a facial challenge. Any individual or organization may challenge the rule at any time. I will be writing to Multnomah Court on this matter, and I expect to file a facial challenge to this rule, pursuant to SLR 1.050(1)(b). Then, the state Supreme Court plays a most important role in solving this because the Supreme Court must approve SLRs. It remains to be seen what the higher courts and the state and federal DA’s offices will say about this. Previous experience predicts yet more obstruction and fraud.

Wherever rule 7.045 exists it is profanely illegal. It contradicts the essence of a justice system, violating each and every person’s Constitutional right to a fair trial.

[2bpurrfect]

hello hello, did you make any progress on this ? it seems to be a bad rule by a bad presiding judge or rulemakers, meant to serve themselves and CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

Originally Posted by ClearWell

Re: Corruption at Multnomah County Court (and elsewhere in Oregon).
Supplementary Local Rule 7.045 (“Motion for Change of Judge”)

There is no doubt that a judicial dictatorship operates at Multnomah County Court (Presiding Judge, Judith Matarazzo). This state of affairs has been brought about by the operation of a court rule, SLR 7.045
What is SLR 7.045? This rule explains to any member of the general public (lawyers and pro se litigants) what they must do to remove (”recuse”) a judge who they believe to be malicious or biased.

However, the provisions of SLR 7.045 are written to make that impossible, even for a lawyer. In this way, corrupt judges protect themselves and deny the people of Oregon a fair trial.


The detail of rule 7.045 is available online, by way of a search engine query. When you check the rule you will find that in order to recuse a judge any member of the public must do the following impossible tasks:
-Report any concerns to the court in writing on the day of the judge’s assignment to the case. If this 'first day' rule is missed it means that judges are above the law, and above the public, who pay their large salaries;
-Produce three separate legal documents within 24 hours of notifying the court:
An order;
An affidavit. An affidavit must be notarized. However, it takes 48 hours to organize a notary public’s appearance at a place such as FedEx;
A motion;
-Each document should meet the court’s requirements for format and presentation. Obviously, 24 hours is not a sufficient time allowance even if a notary public could be found within 24 hours;
-If a member of the public (or pro se litigant) makes an error, then the rule threatens to bring sanctions upon them, “including” economic sanctions.
There are many severe problems with the justice system. This rule is something that can, and must, be changed. The wider question is then one of where else in Oregon does this fraudulent rule exist?

Challenging the rule - “a facial challenge”. SLR 7.045 affects everybody in the same way. This means that this issue is open to a facial challenge. Any individual or organization may challenge the rule at any time. I will be writing to Multnomah Court on this matter, and I expect to file a facial challenge to this rule, pursuant to SLR 1.050(1)(b). Then, the state Supreme Court plays a most important role in solving this because the Supreme Court must approve SLRs. It remains to be seen what the higher courts and the state and federal DA’s offices will say about this. Previous experience predicts yet more obstruction and fraud.

Wherever rule 7.045 exists it is profanely illegal. It contradicts the essence of a justice system, violating each and every person’s Constitutional right to a fair trial.

[texasdiver]

Any law firm would have zero difficulty dealing with this rule. I expect every law firm has a notary public already on staff. You can also get stuff notarized at most banks, title companies, and so forth. So no, it doesn't take 48 hours to find a notary and that isn't an impossible task.

If you aren't up to dealing with the legal system then maybe you should hire a lawyer who knows what they are doing. Getting a judge removed from a case is a very high bar. Trump, with all his millions of dollars of legal representation has been unable to do that in any of his cases. So I suspect it would be difficult for a pro se litigant as well. That is utterly unsurprising.