Daniel C. Re v. PERS, What It’s All About

My lawsuit that is pending in the Oregon Court of Appeals, Re v. PERS, Case No. A148575, asks the court to invalidate certain regulation concerning PERS benefits for judges.  But the case is about something much more important than PERS benefits for judges.  It is about the ability of the Oregon legislature to take away a basic legal protection from the people of Oregon.  It is about the fundamental rights of the people and the power of the legislature.

PERS was created in 1945 and neither legislators nor judges were able to join PERS.  The legislators and the judges are representatives of all Oregonians and their exclusion from PERS insured they were neutral when making PERS laws and deciding PERS cases.  The people of Oregon, who pay for PERS, have the right under Oregon law, the Oregon Constitution and the US Constitution to neutral judges.

The PERS neutrality of legislators and judges began to change in 1971, when the Oregon Attorney General ruled that legislators could join PERS.  Most legislators did join and they doubled PERS retirement benefit during the next ten years.  Then, in 1983, the PERS legislators made the Oregon judges join PERS.  There was no good reason for making the judges join PERS since they had been in a separate retirement plan since 1943, two years before PERS was created.

I believe that current Oregon law requires the PERS judges to disqualify themselves from hearing PERS cases and to appoint temporary, non-PERS judges to hear those cases.  But, if it is impossible to do that, then the law that put Oregon’s judges into PERS in 1983 is unconstitutional because it took away our right to neutral judges.

Since before the magna carta was signed in 1215, people have recognized that a person can not be the judge of that person’s own case.  But that is exactly what the Oregon legislature did in 1983.  It made the Oregon judges the judge of their own PERS cases.  That flunks the smell test and every other test that reasonable people have developed to evaluate the acts of lawmakers.

My case is the first one to ever raise this issue and it will succeed in restoring neutral judges to all Oregonians to decide PERS cases, although that may have to be done in federal court.

Stay tuned as PERS is scheduled to file its response to my suit by this Thursday, January 19, 2012.  I will let you know what it says.

Advertisements

About Dan Re

I am an attorney who has lived in Bend and practiced law since 1981. In educating myself about the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), I was shocked at how the PERS laws were changed by the legislature, once legislators were allowed to join PERS in 1971, 26 years after PERS was first created. Those changes personally benefitted the legislators who made them at the direct financial expense of the people they were elected to represent. That is wrong and I intend to change it. In 2009, I started a non-profit 501(c)(4) corporation, In RE The People, Inc., for the purpose of informing concerned citizens of what happened regarding PERS and other issues of social and civic importance. I then created this blog to further that objective.
This entry was posted in fundamental fairness, Oregon judges, Oregon legislators, Oregon legislature, Oregon PERS and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Daniel C. Re v. PERS, What It’s All About

  1. Pingback: General Meeting | Cottage Grove

  2. Peter Fenton says:

    All banks/financial institutions that have fiduciary responsibilities to, or any interest whatsoever in PERS can be assured that a judge will be looking out for their best interests in cases of foreclosure, loan defaults etc. This is so because the judge is not hearing the case from a neutral position – he/she benefits financially in all rulings favorable to the banks.
    There are some states/counties in which the judges have financial interest in jails. They benefit financially the longer a person stays in jail. The money transfers from the taxpayers who support the jails in greater amounts as sentences are longer and more people are sentenced.
    People who point this out may be subject to “Washington Heart Attacks” or “suicide” (multiple shotgun blasts to the back of the head).
    Many judges can correctly say that justice is for “just us”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s