There comes a point when frustration with a system becomes something more than frustration. It becomes a legitimate question about whether that system is functioning the way the public has every right to expect.
I have reached that point with Josephine County and its court system.
For years, I have attempted to defend myself in a civil lawsuit brought against me. I did not initiate this litigation. I was sued. Yet despite years of proceedings, filings, hearings and attempts to navigate a complicated legal process, what I have wanted from the beginning remains remarkably simple: an opportunity to have the underlying dispute heard and decided on its merits.
I want a trial. I want evidence presented, allegations tested and both sides subjected to the same rules of evidence. I want facts placed before a judge or jury and a decision reached based upon those facts.
Instead, much of this case has revolved around procedure, deadlines, service, notices, filings and whether particular requirements were satisfied at particular moments.
Procedural rules exist for good reason. Courts could not function without them, and representing yourself does not exempt anyone from following those rules. I understand that.
But there is also a larger question worth asking: At what point does procedure cease being the mechanism that gets people to justice and instead become the mechanism that prevents them from ever reaching it?
And after years of attempting to get the substance of this case heard, I have an even more fundamental question for the Josephine County court system:
Why is it so difficult to simply let me be heard?
Why not put the allegations in front of a jury? Why not allow the evidence to be presented? Why not allow witnesses to testify under oath? Why not permit the claims against me to be tested against my defense in a courtroom?
What is there to fear from allowing the facts to be heard?
I am not suggesting that I know the answer to that question. I am asking the question because, after years of litigation, I believe I have every right to ask it.
If the case against me is strong, then put it before a jury.
If the evidence proves the allegations, let the evidence prove them.
If my defense fails, let it fail on the facts.
But if the allegations cannot withstand examination, cross-examination and the presentation of contrary evidence, the public should reasonably ask why the case should be resolved through procedural mechanisms rather than through a determination of its merits.
A courthouse should not become practically inaccessible simply because an ordinary citizen cannot afford an attorney or because that citizen struggles to navigate rules written for a profession requiring years of specialized education.
That concern becomes considerably more serious when a self-represented litigant has repeatedly attempted to participate rather than deliberately ignoring the judicial process.
My experience has left me deeply troubled by how difficult it can be simply to reach the point where the actual facts of a case are heard.
I am a journalist and newspaper publisher. My profession is built around asking questions, examining records and separating what can be demonstrated from what is merely alleged. I therefore will not declare as fact something I cannot prove.
I cannot tell readers that Josephine County’s judicial system is corrupt merely because I disagree with decisions made in my case. I cannot responsibly claim that judges, attorneys, court employees or county officials are protecting friends or granting favors without evidence establishing that accusation.
But neither am I required to stop asking questions simply because those questions may be uncomfortable.
I can question a system that, from my perspective, appears capable of spending years addressing how a case is litigated without ever resolving what the case is actually about. I can question why repeated procedural obstacles continue to stand between a defendant and a trial. I can question whether the practical result represents meaningful access to justice.
Most importantly, I can continue asking the simplest question of all:
Why won’t you hear the case?
People appearing without attorneys are still citizens entitled to the protections of the judicial system. They may misunderstand a rule. They may file something incorrectly. They may use imperfect terminology. They may make mistakes that an experienced attorney would never make. Courts cannot become their attorneys, nor should they. But there should remain a meaningful distinction between enforcing reasonable procedural requirements and allowing procedure to permanently eclipse substance.
Justice should ultimately be about facts. If someone has been wronged, let the evidence demonstrate it. If someone has been falsely accused, let the evidence demonstrate that. If damages occurred, prove them. If they did not, establish that too.
Put the witnesses under oath. Examine the records. Challenge the evidence. Allow each side to make its case and then let the judicial process reach its conclusion.
That is not asking for special treatment. It is asking for a courtroom.
My concerns about government in Josephine County extend beyond whether I personally win or lose a lawsuit. I have spent years reporting on local government, watching public institutions operate and asking questions that sometimes make people uncomfortable. Government should be questioned. Courts should be scrutinized. Public officials should be held accountable. Journalists should be scrutinized as well.
Nobody should receive a free pass, and that includes me.
If allegations have been made against me, I am prepared to answer them publicly and in court. I am prepared to have evidence examined and my conduct judged according to the law. I am prepared to sit before a jury and accept its judgment after both sides have been heard.
What I find increasingly difficult to accept is the possibility that years can pass without ever reaching that fundamental stage.
I do not want favoritism from Josephine County. I do not want sympathy from a judge. I do not want different rules because I represent myself, and I certainly do not want a predetermined outcome in my favor.
I want the same thing every citizen should be able to expect from a courthouse: a fair opportunity to be heard.
When citizens begin believing that access to justice depends more upon mastering procedure than establishing truth, confidence in the institution suffers. When people begin wondering whether connections, money or professional familiarity with the system determine who gets heard, whether or not that perception is ultimately justified, public trust suffers with it.
Those questions do not disappear because they are uncomfortable. They become more important.
The answer to distrust should not be silence. It should be transparency.
Josephine County residents should expect their institutions to withstand difficult questions. Our courts carry enormous authority over people’s property, reputations, livelihoods and lives. With that authority comes an equally substantial responsibility to administer justice fairly and maintain public confidence that every person walking through the courthouse doors receives a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
So I will continue asking the question.
Why won’t the courts simply hear the case?
What is accomplished by continuing to resolve the battle over procedure while leaving the underlying dispute unresolved?
And what, exactly, is there to fear from putting the evidence into a courtroom and allowing the facts to speak for themselves?
I am not asking Josephine County to guarantee that I win. I am asking for the opportunity to stand in a courtroom, present my defense and have this case decided on its merits.
After years inside this process, my request remains remarkably simple: Put the facts in a courtroom. Let the evidence be examined. Let both sides be heard. Then let the law decide the outcome.
And let me make one final point unmistakably clear.
I will not quit because the process is difficult. I will not be discouraged into silence, and I will not give up simply because getting my day in court has proven harder than I ever imagined it should be.
I will continue showing up. I will continue filing. I will continue asking questions. I will continue seeking the opportunity to have the facts heard through the judicial process.
I am not asking for a favor.
I am asking to be heard.
Write that down.