Ripoff Report Needs Your Help!
Report: #1528158

Complaint Review: Multnomah County Circuit Court - Portland Oregon

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Leonard — Portland OR United States
  • Author Not Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • Multnomah County Circuit Court 1200 SW 1st Ave Portland, Oregon United States

Multnomah County Circuit Court The court is fraudulent. It uses fraudulent rules, employs fraudulent judges and of course commits fraudulent acts. This is explained in the report to follow. Portland Oregon

*General Comment: Sounds like a good rule

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..


I am writing to notify you of a fascinating case-study that I conducted on the operation of the state courts, in Oregon. There is no doubt that a judicial dictatorship operates at Multnomah County Court (Presiding Judge, Judith Matarazzo; see later). 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. As well as the obvious unreasonableness this term means that judges are impervious to censure throughout the proceedings;

· Produce three separate legal documents within 24 hours of notifying the court:

o An order

o 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.

o 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?


Judge Judith Matarazzo. It is not surprising that Multnomah is a remarkably corrupt courthouse. The Presiding Judge is Judith Matarazzo. In 2017, the County DA’s office decided to steer criminal cases away from Judith, saying publicly that she is not “fair and impartial” (OregonLive, June 21, 2017). The DA’s complaints stretched back to 2008. Yet, she is now a Presiding Judge, appointed in the March of 2022. It is a state of affairs that invites your organization to act in the public interest: Abolish this rule and replace it with a rule that coheres with Federal Law (28 USC, s. 455). The correct rule would operate in every state courthouse in Oregon.  


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.

The attachment shows a warning message generated by an intrusion into my electronic case file from inside the Court on a Saturday evening.


This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 08/13/2023 07:38 PM and is a permanent record located here: The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals


#1 General Comment

Sounds like a good rule

AUTHOR: Flint - (Afghanistan)

POSTED: Tuesday, August 15, 2023

 Sounds like the rule is working as intended, to stop the abuse of the legal process by pro se litigants such as yourself. Frivolous recusal motions waste court time and taxpayer dollars and delay other, legitimate cases. You don't seem to understand that a motion for recusal requires more than just bald accusations of bias. In fact, there is rarely a situation where such a motion is appropriate. And 24 hours is plenty of time to prepare the appropriate affidavit if there is a legitimate reason for recusal, such as the judge being a relative of one of the parties or being personally involved in the case. Also, UPS stores will notarize anything on a walk in basis. Most other notaries will, as well. You can even call a mobile one.

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Featured Reports

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

Segment Now