11/2004 

AN INTERVIEW WITH BILL SIZEMORE

 

            As most Oregonians know Bill is Oregon’s Ballot Measure Man with  6 successful Ballot Measure victories out of a total of  13 battles..  Being the taxpayers friend, Bill has aroused the fury of the Spend and Tax Special Interests in Oregon.   His experience in our Courts is a story many of us will painfully relate to. However, not being the lightening rod Bill is,  few of our stories have reached the public.   Here is what has happened to him and his work on our behalf.

 

            My first experience with a jury trial was a real opener.  I had no idea of the extent to which judges can make this basic, constitutional right a total farce.   The lawsuit against us was filed after the discovery by the Oregon Education Association that there were a dozen or so forged signatures among the hundreds of thousands of valid signatures we had collected to place two “anti-union” measures on the 2000 ballot.  The union sued our organization to get

all their campaign money back, tripled.  The trial was a jury trial. 

 

            The theory behind the right to a trial by jury is that before a citizen is deprived of liberty or property, the accused will be tried before a panel of his or her peers, who will hear the evidence from both sides and render a decision based on the facts, as they perceive them.

 

            In theory, the jury is he “fact finder” in the case.  However, that is not always the way it works in real life.  Sometimes the judge manipulates the jury to insure that the conclusion it reaches is the one he desires.

 

            However, if a judge can arbitrarily determine the outcome of a trial, simply by controlling what evidence a jury hears, a trial by a jury of one’s peers is a farce.  After all, it is not really a trial by jury if the jurors only hear what the judge lets them hear.  It is still a trial by a single judge.  The jury become puppets, with the judge a puppeteer and taxpayers footing the bill. 

 

            There are valid reasons why some “evidence” should not be admissible.  Someone does have to decide what is relevant or prejudicial.  In my case Oregon Taxpayers United, an organization I once headed, was sued by two teachers unions claiming they were forced to spend $1,000,000. fighting two ballot measures.  The unions claimed the Ballot Measures qualified for  the ballot  with forged signatures, all of a dozen or so which we agreed were forged by one signature collector.  The Secretary of State had previously agreed that out of the thousands and thousands of valid signatures, that a dozen was insignificant and had actually issued a press release stating he could not disenfranchise a hundred thousand voters because of a few forgeries.

 

            To all of us it seemed out case was an easy one to make.  All we had to do was produce that press release.  Incredibly the unions’ lawyers claimed the press release was hearsay! 

 

            Fair enough, we said, we’ll subpoena the Secretary himself.  Alas, not to be.  The Secretary announced he could not be called to answer that single question, did he or did he not issue that press release,  because he did so based on the Attorney General’s advice which was privileged and  confidential.   Multnomah County Judge LaBarre agreed because, he said, it would confuse the jury!   Talk about creative, dirty tricks decisions blatantly toadying

to the unions, revealing how effectively their political donations going his way had ensnared him.

 

The decision:  a $3.4 million dollar judgment against Oregon Taxpayers United. 

           

            The end of the sad story?  No way.   Because they couldn’t collect from a defunct Organization, the teachers’ unions ran back to court and asked that I be made personally liable for that multi-million judgment.   Good Grief, more of the teachers union dues going to pay lawyers, and forcing me, who was already out of a job,  to do likewise.  

 

            Not to worry our lawyers told us, didn’t the judge and the unions also tell the jury in the first trial that Bill Sizemore was not on trial; that Bill Sizemore was not a defendant in the case; Bill Sizemore was not being sued.  All we need do was remind them of those statements. 

 

            Portland Judge Ann Fisher recklessly disregarded the law, did not allow any trial, any opportunity for us to answer the teachers’ claim but announced, yes, you can make Bill Sizemore liable;  you can garnish his wages; take his savings; attach his home; make his wife and children suffer.  How deplorably destitute of decent moral values Oregon teachers have become!   They have the power to expel those union leaders responsible for this shameful behavior.  Maybe we can help the teachers pull this out of the fire.

 

            A Ballot Measure to stop such court decisions could be the answer – a Ballot Measure to Elect a Lay Council to Oversee Complaints Against Judges and Lawyers.

 

For many years the Oregon Bar has protected the brotherhood.  Out of about 2,000 complaints against attorneys a year, approximately 67 are investigated;  30 found to have some culpability; 9 sanctioned; 5 disbarred.   All the rest?    Dismissed on the attorneys say so.

 

            As for complaints against Judges, you need to complain to the Judicial Fitness Commission, taxpayer funded.   It is governed by 3 judges, 3 lawyers and 3 lay people. The lay people are usually retired judges or lawyers.   Unless they want to tar and feather a particular judge, your complaint goes nowhere at all.

 

            Our courts are the protectors of our Constitutional Rights.  When corrupted none of us can count on any Rights.