CCP's WASHINGTON COUNTY JUDGE CHARLES BAILEY -
NO LONGER FIT TO BE A PRESIDING JUDGE, NOR OVERSEE CRIMINAL CASES, NOW ONLY OVERSEES FAMILY COURT AND STATES THIS RULE IS TO TARGET AND SILENCE THOSE FAMILIES - IN THE ONE REMAINING COURTROOM HE CONTROLS
One of the more vocal CCP members (based on CCP published minutes available only thru June 2024, as of May 2025 and the time of this writing) of ORCP Rule 35 is Washington County's Judge Charles Bailey, who has had a tort claim brought against him by another Judge - accusing Judge Bailey of "outrageous and unlawful harassment", which began as soon as Judge Bailey became the Presiding Judge of Wash. Co Court.
A few years later the Oregon Supreme Court opened an investigation into Judge Bailey based on concerns of several judges, Judge Bailey preemptively resigned from being the presiding judge, before any sanctions could be brought against him.
1 year later after serious complaints in criminal court again Judge Bailey preemptively recused himself before sanctions - now from overseeing Oregon's largest public defender in his letter RE: "RECUSAL FROM ALL MPD CASES".
It appears that Judge Bailey has been removed / recused / allowed to opt out of ALL criminal cases in Washington County Court and not just Metropolitan Public Defender cases, because now his docket shows that he is only overseeing vulnerable family court dockets - where over 75% of one party or more is self represented - due mainly to finances.
Judge Bailey is consistently using his judicial power and his abuse of discretion: denying parties their access to DUE PROCESS - denying hearings, denying oral arguments even with certificate of compliances, with no explanation provided, when asked - causing parties to submit additional fillings to attempt to be heard - Motions for Reconsiderations, Objections - all denied without explanation - creating what the CCP now wants to punish, label an "abusive litigants" and SILENCE.
In CCP's DEC 2022 Minutes on ORCP Rule 35's earlier iteration - it stated: "Judge Bailey stated that he thinks that there are two different types of vexatious litigants. There is one type who files a lot of different claims. The other type files multiple motions in the same action. He stated that judges see a lot of the latter type in family law matters, which are different and perhaps more suited for this rule."
Judge Bailey citing the reason, that these now "abusive litigants" as the CCP is now labelling them 3 years later in it's repackaged ORCP RULE 35 2025, is that they filed "multiple motions in the same action" - ignores that in Oregon, family cases remain open for years under one case number. You're given one case number for your divorce, separation and every modification, filing is under that same original case number until the minor is 18. Judge Bailey's framing distorts standard family court practice in Oregon and appears to justify silencing vulnerable litigants in the one courtroom he still controls.
CCP's CLACKAMAS COUNTY JUDGE SUSIE NORBY -
CCP's other vocal judge on ORCP RULE 35 is Clackamas County Circuit Court's Judge Susie Norby, who infamously rapped at an African American defendant and sentenced him to 15 years for robbing a puppy, who got locked in the courtroom on a Sunday and proceeded to destroy the marble door frame, causing thousands in damage, who must recently was overruled by Oregon's Supreme Court bypassing the Appeals Court directly, when they stated that Judge Norby's ruling was a “categorical assumption" who appears to be the 'founder' of the Rule based on CCP minutes that go back to 2022.
“This is her final biennium on the Council and she feels that promulgation of a vexatious litigant rule would be a huge contribution to the bar before she leaves.” — ORCP Rule 35 wasn’t public policymaking. It was a legacy project—pushed through without public testimony, without a vote, and without any standard of legislative review.
DEC 2022 minutes stated: "Judge Norby also pointed out that there were some comments that claimed both that the rule is probably unconstitutional and that it duplicates processes that are already available to the court. She noted that both of those propositions cannot be true. She stated that some comments argued that the rule is targeted to be weaponized against litigants with legitimate claims. However, a litigant cannot be deemed vexatious under this rule without a judge considering all of the factors in section D."
Earlier minutes from JAN 8, 2022 indicate Judge Norby stated: "Judge Norby stated that the Clackamas County court has encountered a few particularly problematic litigants in the last few years, and has been doing research to see if the presiding judge could designate someone a vexatious litigant.... One of these litigants currently has 24 open cases right now, with six on appeal, and each case is about the same thing. Judge Norby wondered whether this might be an issue for the Council to research because, on occasion people are so prolific and abusive in their filings, and it would be nice to have a tool to deal with it."
What the Honorable Judge Susie Norby stated in 2022 refers to an early version of RULE 35 from 3 years ago and it appears what the judge states in regards to the 2022 section D has changed in substance and labeling in the current version of ORCP Rule 35.
Section D in the 2022 draft (which labeled individuals as “vexatious litigants”) stated “In determining whether a person is a vexatious litigant, the court shall consider all of the following factors…” The rule then listed specific factors judges were required to evaluate before restricting someone’s access.
Judge Norby’s comment in December 2022 directly referred to this, emphasizing that there was a safeguard requiring judicial analysis of all factors before someone could be branded “vexatious.” That’s what she meant by saying a judge must consider “all of the factors in Section D”.
In the 2024 version, the label was changed to “abusive litigant” (not “vexatious”), and the equivalent of Section D no longer exists in the same way.
Instead of requiring the court to consider all listed factors, the 2024 version of Rule 35 only requires that the court find at least one of the triggering behaviors (e.g., filing repeated motions, intending to harass, or burden the opposing party or court). The shift from mandatory “shall consider all” to a more discretionary trigger dilutes the due process protection significantly.