[ STOP ORCP RULE 35 ]

WE URGE OREGON'S LEGISLATURE, ITS JUDICARY COMMITTEES - TO REPEAL ORCP RULE 35, BEFORE THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION ENDS JUNE 29, 2025 - Take immediate legislative action to repeal ORCP Rule 35, which is set to take effect January 1, 2026 unless the Legislature intervenes before THIS SESSION ENDS. REPEAL ORCP RULE 35, OR ALLOW IN PERSON PUBLIC HEARING THIS SESSION 

PLEASE CALL / EMAIL THE JUDICARY COMMITTEES MEMBERS - PH #S & EMAIL LINK

503-986-1454 - House Judiciary Committee's Chair Rep.JasonKropf@oregonlegislature.gov

503-986-1704 - Senate Judiciary Committee's Chair Sen.FloydProzanski@oregonlegislature.gov *

*SENATOR PROZANSKI - WE EXPECT TRANSPARENCY ON ORCP RULE 35 and all ORCP RULES, COUPLED WITH OPB's RECENT REPORTING ON YOUR ABUSE OF 'PLACEHOLDER' BILLS?  

((WE NEED YOU TO PLEASE CALL/ EMAIL YOUR LOCAL REPS - SPREAD THE WORD, TO GET THIS STOPPED))

This rule was created by JUDGES  and will allow any JUDGE in Oregon to label a civil litigant “abusive” — and restrict their access to justice, to due process, their ability to file any new motions or cases without judicial permission.  There has been NO ACCESS TO PUBLIC COMMENT OR TESTIMONY on ORCP Rule 35.

> Violates current Oregon law ORS 1.735(1) by modifying litigants’ substantive rights.
> Denies due process and presumes guilt without trial.
> Empowers OR judges to label litigant Oregonians as harassers or abusers based on vague and subjective factors.
> Provides no formal path for appeal, jury review, or meaningful challenge.

This rule doesn't protect people --- it further protects Oregon's court's power.

🛑 Making Oregon - the first state in America allowing judicial silencing - a judicial blacklist of citizens - Oregon was the last state in America to allow citizens the right to a fair jury. SHAMEFUL 🛑

This isn’t targeting corporations or high-powered litigants. It’s aimed at those having to face civil court - tenants, survivors, families, Oregonians - many of whom are self represented and are already facing significant hurdles with many times adversarial opposing counsel, procedural barriers, judicial bias and unequal negotiating leverage. Trying to make sense of Oregon's court system that dangerously lacks clear and accessible information.

It’s aimed at tenants, survivors, families - regular Oregonians before court and trying to represent themselves in court, it will be weaponized. These are everyday Oregonians—who can now be silenced indefinitely - created in an echo chamber by judges that already prevent access to justice and due process for many.

ORCP Rule 35 was created without data, public research, or independent oversight. It’s being justified based on judge anecdotes—not evidence.

Unlike states like Washington, California, or Texas, where restrictions on “vexatious" litigants are tied to protecting opposing parties from harassment, Oregon’s ORCP Rule 35 is structured to protect judges—not litigants. It allows a judge to silence someone simply for filing “too many motions” or challenging court decisions, with no requirement to show harm to another party. It’s a tool to shield the bench from criticism, not a safeguard for justice. 

THIS RULE WAS CRAFTED FOR SEVERAL YEARS & WRITTEN BY OREGON COUNCIL ON COURT PROCEDURES 

WITH NO TRANSPARENCY

It was written and pushed through by a closed-door committee per ORS 1.730 - "12 (+1 =13) judges*, 12 attorneys & 1 public member "chosen by the OR Supreme Court**" - most of whom hold institutional power.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ON CCP

*CCP 13th Judge Mark A. Peterson, is the Executive Director of the CCP,  who has held that role since 2005 for 20 years, was a professor of law at Lewis & Clark Law School and Northwestern School of Law 29 years (1987-2016), and became a pro tem Judge in 2018 while on this committee. 

The other CCP council staff member, is CCP's Executive Assistant, Shari C. Nilsson who has held that paid role for 18 years, while also being the Director of Operations and working at nonprofit The Lawyers Campaign for Equal Justice for over 17 years. 

 **CCP's 1 public member has held that role since 2017 & works for an employment law firm, HKM Employment Attorneys LLP - who lists as their clients: 

Super Lawyers, National Employment Lawyers Association, Martindale Hubbel Rated, Overall Employment Law Firm of the Year, Lawyer Monthly – Labor and Employment Law Firm of the Year, USA Global Mobility – Employment Focused Litigator of the Year, USABest Lawyers – Best Law Firms, American Bar Association 

HKM Employment Attorneys, LLP not only represents all of these legal industry firms and the American Bar Association but Shemia Fagan lists them has her full time employer although her Oregon State Bar member lookup lists Ms Fagan's gmail account and not HKM Employment attorneys.

NO CCP MINUTES POSTED SINCE JUNE 2024 - NO INFO ON CCP MEMBERS VOTING

It appears no public comment was allowed during the rule's development other then CCP's allowed "guests" to the its ever "changing," unclear "meeting links." 

The CCP's minutes and comments are still not posted from their SEPT 14, 2024 and DEC 14, 2024 meetings they are "*COMING SOON"- NO meetings minutes are posted after JUNE 2024 and NO agendas are posted since DEC. 2024 why is that? it appears this COMING SOON occurred 3 years ago in 2022, when the OCCP was trying to push through a previous version Rule 35  

Systemic Transparency Failures in the CCP Rulemaking Process - ORCP Rule 35 has been in the works well before 2022 - NO VISIBILITY 

As of May 2025, the Oregon Council on Court Procedures (CCP) has not published any meeting minutes beyond June 2024, despite substantive action on ORCP Rule 35 occurring later that year. The Council does not disclose how individual members vote; even in 2022, only aggregate vote totals were recorded. This lack of transparency undermines the legislative purpose of ORS 1.735, which requires accountability in rulemaking that governs the procedural rights of all civil litigants.

Although designated as a public body, the CCP does not consistently post public meeting access links, meeting schedules, or notice of agenda items in a format accessible to the general public. There is no record of public hearings or testimony on ORCP Rule 35 in 2024, and posted written comments are limited to licensed attorneys — excluding those most impacted by the rule, including low-income and self-represented litigants.

In addition, the CCP’s sole “public member” — appointed by the Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice — is an attorney employed by HKM Employment Attorneys LLP, a firm that represents legal professionals and members of the American Bar Association. This calls into question the neutrality and independence of public representation in a rulemaking body tasked with protecting the procedural rights of the broader public, not solely members of the legal profession.

This is not about protecting victims or preventing abuse of process.

Despite how it’s framed, ORCP Rule 35 has nothing to do with shielding the opposing party from coercion, harassment, or controlling litigation. Those protections already exist. What Rule 35 really does is formalize a kind of “judicial blacklisting” — empowering judges to label litigants as “abusive” based on vague criteria, with no criminal standard, and no jury. This is not about controlling others’ behavior; it’s about controlling access to the courthouse. Worse, it codifies judicial abusive discretion — a structural power grab that allows certain judges and attorneys to suppress filings without accountability. When you strip away the misleading language, Rule 35 is a procedural tool that benefits only one group: the system itself. 

The term “abusive” was chosen intentionally instead of the legally appropriate “vexatious,” further stigmatizing these parties.

"Abusive is a harsh and loaded word. It connotes criminality, and evokes mental or even physical assault. It is absolute overkill in a civil context. The common parlance for annoying litigants — in other state and federal courts — is “vexatious,” i.e. frustrating, irritating, disturbing. That Oregon refuses to use “vexatious,” or some actual synonym, reveals what Oregon really wants: an expedited pathway to label — and punish — certain people as “criminals," while entirely circumventing criminal court processes."

>>>CCP's alarming 'Meeting Minutes' over the years, all posted on their site, fixated on protecting suits against government bodies & political figures 

Earlier CCP committees in 2021 and 2022 formed and Tillamook's Judge Jonathan Hill stated that the committee did not have a consensus as to whether this would just be applied to pro se litigants or to members of the bar as well. The committee wanted to meet again and then bring in representation from the OJD, the Professional Liability Fund, the OSB, and possibly others.....       

Judge Jon Hill pointed out that there are some places, like Clackamas County, where people are trying to re-litigate the same issue over and over again, or where groups of people keep bringing the same type of action against every governmental body they can, and where vexatious litigants are a bigger problem......      

Judge Norby addressed Ms. Holley’s report that judges she had consulted about the most recent draft of ORCP 35 were worried that the last draft of subsection D(2) would not cover situations where an abusive litigant sues a series of defendants, like political figures, rather than just one. 

CCP MINUTES CAPTURE ALARMING STATEMENTS OF OREGON JUDGES

"This rule is designed for litigants that make judges say, Wow, this is unbelievable., And we have to deal with this over and over because the person has the right to come in here and just keep filing this stuff." 

"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."

"perhaps one of the things a court could consider is whether there is an attorney involved in the case. This might mitigate against finding an attorney vexatious, since it is primarily self-represented litigants who are causing these problems."

"Judge Norby reminded the Council that it has not created a completely new rule in a long time. It has been and will continue to be a real undertaking, but she is personally invested in creating a rule that will help the courts prevent the real suffering that is occurring and that courts have inherent authority to address, but sometimes do not because adequate processes are not in place and not enough court staff is available to research those processes. Her goal is not to create a rule that hurts anyone but, rather, to standardize a mishmash of processes that judges are already using..... "

'Judge Norby stated that she had previously reached out to Ms. Holley, who kindly agreed to be on a new vexatious litigant committee that Judge Norby is happy to chair if the Council is willing to form it. She stated that she is still hopeful and  optimistic that there is a rule that can be drafted that will be acceptable to the plaintiffs’ bar. Having Ms. Holley as an articulate representative of the plaintiffs’ bar to help her understand where some of the pitfalls are will be very helpful. Ms. Holley stated that she cannot guarantee that she can get the plaintiffs’ bar on board, but that she is willing to help. 

"Judge Norby stated 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."

"CCP Executive Director and judge Judge Mark Peterson stated that he is hearing that judges have all of this inherent power, even as far back as a 1906 case, but this is like saying that we have the tools, but we think we left them out  in the back yard somewhere, they are probably rusty, we are not sure how to use them, and no one knows where the user manual might be. He opined that Rule 35 is just a huge user manual for those tools, and that it would be hugely beneficial for judges."

We must demand transparency, accountability, and due process. ORCP 35 is a dangerous tool for silencing people who can’t afford lawyers. It contradicts the values of justice and equal access.

TO OREGON'S JUDICIARY COMMITTEES - HOUSE & SENATE: REPEAL ORCP RULE 35 - IF NOT THEN THERE MUST BE A PUBLIC HEARING ON ORCP Rule 35 THIS SESSION - IN PERSON MEETING WHERE THE PUBLIC CAN SPEAK  ON THE RECORD

 
Repeal or block its implementation through legislative action before June 29, 2025
Investigate the rule-making process and potential conflicts of interest in the Council on Court Procedures.

MAY 8th, 2025 LETTER SENT TO BOTH COMMITTEES AND OREGON GOVERNMENT ETHICS COMMISSION

MAY 15, 2025 FOLLOW UP LETTER  AND GRIEVANCE SUBMITTED TO BOTH COMMITTEES AND OREGON GOVERNMENT ETHICS COMMISSION

MAY 28, 2025 ESCLATED LETTER TO  Speaker Julie Fahey, Senate President Rob Wagner and Governor Tina Kotek  

MAY 28, 2025 SECOND EMAIL | LETTER  NOW RE: "APPENDIX G" HIDDEN REWRITING OF ORS LAW - A VIOLATION OF CCP's JURISDICTION - SENT TO Speaker Julie Fahey, Senate President Rob Wagner and Governor Tina Kotek    

PRESS RELEASE - PLEASE PASS ON - THANK YOU

SITE IS A WORK IN PROGRESS - WE WERE JUST INFORMED OF THIS RULE - PLEASE COME BACK FOR INFO - PLEASE HELP STOP ORCP RULE 35 - THANK YOU