Hearing becomes a ‘Star Chamber’ as Oregon OAH judge apparently bans reporter for being Black, sparking constitutional fury
By M. Thomas Nast with Rick LaRivière
Ejected for Being Black and Press
Black investigative journalist Rick LaRivière was tossed from an Oregon administrative hearing related to an alleged child murder cover-up after the presiding judge apparently openly admitted she was barring him because he is Black and a journalist.
The shocking ejection came during a September 24 Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) proceeding overseen by Administrative Law Judge Jennifer H. Rackstraw. When LaRivière insisted on his right to observe the ostensibly public proceeding, the ALJ’s statement shook the telephonic proceeding.
According to an unofficial transcript received, Judge Rackstraw stunned everyone when LaRivière asked whether he was being excluded because he was Black, a reporter, or both: “Yes. And I am also excluding you because this hearing is closed to the public.”
In other words, she said the quiet part out loud – acknowledging race and press status as her reasons for removal. Rackstraw claimed Oregon administrative law required a closed hearing and demanded that the reporter leave the remote hearing.
LaRivière – a credentialed independent investigative reporter with several outlets and a verified MuckRack profile – refused to hang up. He immediately asked for a written order “to file an emergency petition with the Federal District Court,” signaling he would challenge what he called an “authoritarian ruling” in federal court.
“Have the courage to put your authoritarian ruling on paper so we can challenge it. I thought this was America,” LaRivière fumed.
The confrontation ground the hearing to a halt. Rather than let a Black journalist witness the proceeding, Rackstraw abruptly postponed it – an admission that she’d rather shut down the hearing than let the press or public see what was happening.
Judge Boots Black Journalist: Showdown in a ‘Kangaroo Court’
LaRivière’s expulsion set off a firestorm on the record: he and others on the call unloaded on Rackstraw’s brazen disregard for constitutional rights.
“Go ahead – throw out the press. Rip the First Amendment out of the Constitution while you’re at it. Erase the Free Press Clause and the Petition Clause from our Bill of Rights. Go on!”
LaRivière railed. The veteran journalist cast Rackstraw as an unelected bureaucrat trampling the supreme law: he reminded her she’s “not an actual judge… [just] an executive branch employee” with “no real judicial authority” to override the Constitution.
Rackstraw’s OAH title, he suggested, gave her “borrowed authority” – not a license to ban press freedom.
Jill Jones-Soderman, the respondent in the case and executive director of the Foundation for the Child Victims of the Family Courts (FCVFC.org), was equally furious.
“I will not agree to a closed hearing… I want the entire country to hear what is happening here,” she declared, refusing to consent to secrecy. Jones-Soderman blasted the proceeding as a “Star Chamber – an illegitimate, secret proceeding built on twisted evidence and lies.”
She and LaRivière repeatedly accused Oregon officials of running a kangaroo court to cover up misconduct.
When Rackstraw threatened to continue the case later without press, Jones-Soderman shot back: “Do whatever you want… whatever you do, it’s going up on appeal… If you try to silence me here, I’ll see you in a real court of law.”
With LaRivière refusing to budge, the state’s attorney moved to delay the hearing rather than proceed in front of a free press. Rackstraw willingly obliged – shutting down the teleconference and scheduling an in-person session where she vowed the reporter “will not be allowed in.”
The message was unmistakable: Oregon’s administrative court would rather throw out the First Amendment than let a Black reporter shine light on its actions.
Judge Boots Black Journalist: Email Demands Answers from Oregon DOJ
The fallout from Judge Rackstraw’s actions was immediate. On September 26, reporter M. Thomas Nast fired off a blistering email to Oregon DOJ official Rachel E. Bertoni, who had represented the state at the hearing. Nast’s message demanded answers for the judge’s overtly racist and anti-press conduct.
He quoted Rackstraw’s own words, in which Rackstraw admitted the exclusion was because LaRivière is Black and a journalist, then challenged the Oregon Department of Justice to justify this outrage. Here is what he asked:
From Modern Thomas Nast <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>
To Rachel.E.Bertoni@doj.oregon.gov, Pamela.Rojek@doj.oregon.gov
CC Rick LaRiviere <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>, Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>, Dick LaFontaine <ralafontaine@protonmail.com>, frankiepressman@protonmail.com, juliea005 <juliea005@proton.me>, Michael Volpe <mvolpe998@gmail.com>, mikethunderphillips@gmail.com
Date Friday, September 26th, 2025 at 3:36 PMDear Ms. Bertoni,
We are writing to the Oregon Department of Justice as a coalition of investigative reporters concerning journalist Rick LaRiviere and an Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) proceeding held on September 24, 2025, presided over by Administrative Law Judge Jennifer H. Rackstraw.
We have obtained a transcript of the hearing from a protected source. The transcript contains the following critical exchange:
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW (00:14:42): That’s enough. I’m excluding you from this hearing, Mr. LaRiviere—
RICK LARIVIERE (00:14:49): On what grounds, Judge? Tell me, are you excluding me because I’m Black? Because I’m a journalist? Or is it both?
JUDGE RACKSTRAW (00:14:58): Yes. And I am also excluding you because this hearing is closed to the public. It is confidential, subject to a protective order, and you have no right to be here.This raises several urgent questions:
- Does the DOJ interpret Judge Rackstraw’s “Yes” as an admission that Mr. LaRiviere was excluded because he is Black?
- Why were all white participants allowed to remain, but the only Black participant—a journalist—was singled out and ejected?
- We have further evidence that the DOJ has questioned whether Rick LaRiviere “is a real person.” Is it the DOJ’s position that Black journalists are not recognized as legitimate or are treated as second-class citizens? For the record, Mr. LaRiviere is a credentialed reporter with a verifiable profile:
https://muckrack.com/rick-lariviere-1.- Does the DOJ support the inclusion of Black journalists in covering public-interest matters, or does it condone their exclusion?
- Will the DOJ release the full audio of the September 24 hearing so the public can judge for themselves whether systemic racism and hostility toward the press occurred?
The transcript we reviewed strongly suggests that Judge Rackstraw’s exclusion of Mr. LaRiviere was at least partly race-based. Without the release of the audio, the public cannot be assured otherwise.
We demand clear answers. Failure to respond will be taken as tacit endorsement of racially discriminatory press exclusion by the Oregon DOJ and OAH.
We intend to go to press shortly. If we publish prior to receiving your response, it will be incorporated in a follow-up.
Regards,
Modern Thomas Nast
mthomasnast@protonmail.com
Boss Tweed was just the beginning. Operating in the shadows to expose the shady
Nast’s email pulls no punches. It effectively asks if Oregon’s justice officials will defend a “blatant… suspension” of core civil rights or hold their rogue judge accountable.
The questions highlight the ugly reality: a Black journalist was openly shunned from a proceeding of immense public concern – a case involving alleged child abuse cover-ups – simply for who he is and what he does.
The ball is now in the DOJ’s court to answer for Rackstraw’s conduct. Will they back Rackstraw’s closed-door secrecy and racial bias, or admit that she crossed an uncrossable line?
The silence so far is deafening.
Judge Boots Black Journalist: Constitutional Showdown Looms
What happened in that Salem telephone hearing-turned-star chamber is now escalating into a constitutional showdown.
“Let the record reflect that you chose to suspend the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment, and the Oregon Constitution today,” LaRivière declared to Judge Rackstraw’s face.
By ejecting a credentialed member of the press on the basis of race, Oregon’s OAH has invited a legal and public reckoning. LaRivière and Jones-Soderman have separately vowed to fight back in real courts – not Rackstraw’s administrative fiefdom.
“We will bring this entire matter to federal court,” Jones-Soderman warned during the hearing.
LaRivière, for his part, wears his ouster as a badge of honor – a rallying cry against censorship. He guaranteed the story would get out, telling the officials on the record, “I will be reporting on all of this.”
Meanwhile, Judge Rackstraw has cemented her reputation as a censorious bureaucrat willing to jettison constitutional rights behind closed doors. Observers are likening Oregon’s behavior to something out of Pyongyang, not Portland.
“This is one of the craziest hearings I’ve ever witnessed… It’s straight out of the Pyongyang playbook. It’s insane!” LaRivière exclaimed as the state pulled the plug.
The Oregon DOJ now faces a firestorm of public outrage and potential civil rights litigation. In America, even in an administrative forum, the First Amendment and equal protection are supposed to mean something. If Oregon officials hoped to avoid scrutiny by expelling a Black reporter, they miscalculated badly.
Instead, they ignited a furore over free speech and race that is only growing louder. The Star Chamber has been exposed to the sunlight – and the Constitution is coming for those who tried to shutter the doors.
The Oregon DOJ has not released an official transcript of the proceedings. This transcript has been confirmed by sources with knowledge as a fair and accurate representation of the proceedings from memory:
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:00:03 – This conference may be recorded. Did someone just join the line?
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:00:10 – Yes, Judge. This is Rick LaRivière, Investigative Reporter.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:00:15 – Alright. Mr. LaRivière, be advised: this proceeding is confidential. I must ask you to leave the conference. This hearing is closed to the public under Oregon law.
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:00:28 – (defiantly) Judge, could you put that in writing, please? I’ll need a written order to file an emergency petition with the Federal District Court.
JILL JONES-SODERMAN: 00:00:35 – Are you acting as a Star Chamber here? Closing the hearing to the press—secretly, without accountability?
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:00:38 – So you’re not allowing the free press to observe how and why you’re violating people’s rights—violating the rights of Jewish people, the rights of murdered children? We’ll be bringing this to federal court immediately. If you want the press gone, Your Honor, issue an order for Ms. Jones-Soderman to that effect. Have the courage to put your authoritarian ruling on paper so we can challenge it. I thought this was America.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:00:56 – A protective order has already been entered by this tribunal. It mandates confidentiality.
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:00:58 – Then I’m proceeding straight to federal court, Your Honor. If you’re kicking us off without a proper order, I’ll be sure to inform the federal court that you don’t care about the Constitution – neither the First Amendment nor the Fourteenth. If you want us off this call, fine. Just say it plainly: admit you’re issuing an authoritarian gag order, so we can challenge it. I thought this was still America!
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:01:26 – I’m telling you, this is an administrative proceeding under the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act. The constitutional courtroom standards you’re invoking do not apply in the same way here.
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:01:32 – Does the Oregon Constitution not apply here either, Judge? Article I, Section 8 – free speech – does that just vanish too? Are you suspending the Oregon Constitution along with the U.S. Constitution?
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:01:44 – By statute and under the administrative rules governing this case, I am required to close this hearing to the public and—
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:01:49 – *(interjecting) *What Cracker Jack box law school taught you that statutes and rules outrank the Constitution? Seriously, Judge – you think an administrative rule can trump the First Amendment? I’ll make sure to quote you on that in my court filings.
JILL JONES-SODERMAN: 00:02:10 – (heated) We will bring this entire matter to federal court, if that’s how you want to play it. Let me get this straight: you’re saying a member of the press must leave this call because you insist on a closed-door hearing? Is that truly the position of the Oregon Office of Administrative Hearings?
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:02:17 – You’re mischaracterizing the issue, Ms. Jones-Soderman. The evidence in this case—
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:02:19 – (sarcastic)* Mischaracterizing? No – you torture children, then you torture the evidence of their abuse. Good to know that’s how Oregon operates.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:02:25 – (sharply) That’s enough. I note for the record that this telephone hearing is subject to the protective order, and—
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:02:36 – Oh, wonderful. Is this hearing subject to the First Amendment too, or have you written that out of your rules?
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:02:44 – Mr. LaRivière, for the final time: you must disconnect from this hearing now. That is an order.
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:02:50 – Do you even have the power to kick me off this line? Go ahead – eject the press. I’d wear it as a badge of honor, a civil disobedience protest against your First Amendment violation.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:03:02 – I am ruling that this hearing—
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:03:05 – “Hearing is public,” Judge? Because I don’t respect the authority of a kangaroo court that won’t follow the United States Constitution or the Oregon Constitution.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:03:15 – I have the authority under the law, Mr. LaRivière, and I—
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:03:23 – And I have authority from God Almighty to protect children!
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:03:28 – No, sir. Please, I am ordering you: get off this line now—
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:03:30 – (voice rising) I’m not going anywhere. If you want me gone, you’ll have to remove me yourself. Go ahead – throw out the press. Rip the First Amendment out of the Constitution while you’re at it. Erase the Free Press Clause and the Petition Clause from our Bill of Rights. Go on! Let’s see if your administrative rules truly give you that power.
OREGON COUNSEL RACHEL E. BERTONI: 00:03:49 – (raising voice over crosstalk)* Your Honor, the Board moves for a continuance of this hearing—
JILL JONES-SODERMAN: 00:03:52 – (hotly, cutting in) Continue the hearing another day? Go ahead, you’ll only draw more public attention! You think delaying will solve your problem? It won’t. You will have the same press presence, and even greater numbers next time. You are not going to suppress these egregious rights violations or stop us from protecting children! The Foundation for Child Victims – and countless concerned citizens – know exactly what’s happening here. We have seen this before: a corrupt family court system, a child-trafficking enterprise operating under color of authority. And now your Board’s charges against me today are nothing but retaliation – just like other boards that tried to bury evidence of murdered children and silence protective parents. We will not stand for it!
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:04:30 – (attempting to regain control)* Ms. RACHEL E. BERTONI, the Board has made a motion. Please state the basis for your continuance request.
OREGON COUNSEL RACHEL E. BERTONI: 00:04:40 – Certainly, Your Honor. The basis is that we have a disruptive individual on this call who refuses to leave despite your repeated instructions, despite the protective order, and despite Oregon statutes and administrative rules mandating confidentiality. Your Honor has the authority to control the conduct of this hearing.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:04:58 – And the Board is within its rights to seek a continuance if a disruptive presence refuses to leave – as this unidentified gentleman has refused to do.
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:05:10 – (firmly, clarifying) For the record, Rick LaRivière, investigative reporter. You can look me up – Florida Gulf News, MuckRack, Family Court Circus – I will be reporting on all of this.
OREGON COUNSEL RACHEL E. BERTONI: 00:05:22 – And, Your Honor, given the need to protect the privacy of this matter and to conduct the proceeding in an appropriate, respectful way, perhaps we should just—
JILL JONES-SODERMAN: 00:05:25 – (outraged) “Respectful”? There is nothing respectful about this hearing or your Board’s conduct! Your Board – and others like it – empower hacks and criminals under the guise of state licenses, giving utterly incompetent people illegitimate power over the lives of families. This proceeding is exactly that – an abuse of process. You raised this bogus issue against me, and I will answer it in federal court if I must. We object to any continuance or further action by this kangaroo tribunal!
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:06:15 – (exasperated)* Ms. Jones-Soderman, enough. I’m going to ask you a direct question, and I want a simple yes or no.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:06:23 – What is your position on the Board’s motion? Do you object to a continuance to an in-person hearing?
JILL JONES-SODERMAN: 00:06:30 – Yes, I object. I want this hearing to continue today, right now. You’ve already disrupted my entire schedule with this nonsense— I won’t waste more time on it. Proceed with the hearing now. However, if we proceed at this moment, Oregon law demands the proceeding be closed to the public, meaning any reporter or observer must be removed… and I object to that requirement! I will not agree to a closed hearing. I want this hearing open to the public – I want the entire country to hear what is happening here.
OREGON COUNSEL RACHEL E. BERTONI: 00:07:18 – Your Honor, the Board will not agree to an open hearing. Absolutely not. Under no circumstances can this proceeding go forward as a public hearing.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:07:25 – Ms. Jones-Soderman, you have a choice. And Mr. LaRivière, so do you.
JILL JONES-SODERMAN: 00:07:30 – (defiant)* Do whatever you want. Whatever you do, it’s going up on appeal. Go ahead – I’ll follow whatever lawful directions you give, but know this: I will fight every illegal action you take. And everything that happens here will be made public. I will never submit to an illegal order. We will litigate this as far as needed – and we will publish every detail. If you try to silence me here, I’ll see you in a real court of law.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:07:50 – This is a proper legal forum, Ms. Jones-Soderman.
JILL JONES-SODERMAN: 00:07:55 – No, it isn’t. It’s a Star Chamber – an illegitimate, secret proceeding built on twisted evidence and lies.
JILL JONES-SODERMAN: 00:08:27 – (continuing, passionate) The absurdity here is astounding. You have all the hard evidence of my innocence, yet you pursue this charade. I have never had any interest in acting as a psychologist – never. And writing an article about Munchausen by Proxy, or schizophrenia, or borderline personality disorder does not require a psychology license, not in any sane jurisdiction. Do you truly believe every person who discusses mental health needs a state license? I don’t think so. The experts I’ve worked with – MDs and PhDs at Columbia University – certainly don’t think only licensed psychologists are allowed to weigh in on these matters. Your interpretation of the rules is as ridiculous as this hearing!
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: – (raising voice to interject)* Ms. Jones-Soderman, please. Let me get a word in here… (pauses) Thank you.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:09:50 – Now, Mr. LaRivière – you, sir, as the investigative reporter – will you leave this call voluntarily at this time?
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:09:50 – I am here as an investigative reporter seeking the truth. If you, Judge, can state for the record that everything you’re doing here fully complies with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Oregon Constitution – if you can honestly say this process is open, transparent, and constitutional – then I’d have no reason to remain. But the fact is, as Jefferson said, I represent the eye of vigilance: I am the Press. And you are barring the press from a proceeding of grave public concern. This case involves the abuse – even murder – of a child. That is very much the public’s business.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:10:36 – This hearing is not about the murder of a child. This hearing is about the alleged unlicensed practice of psychology by the respondent—
JILL JONES-SODERMAN: 00:10:40 – (fury in her voice) Oh, yes it is about that child! Don’t you dare pretend otherwise. Oregon authorities have perpetrated terrible crimes against the family at the center of this case – against Ms. Silverman and her child. You and your cohorts allowed a prosecution that distorted and suppressed critical evidence. And you’re trying to continue that cover-up right now with this secret proceeding. I will not tolerate it. We will not tolerate it. And Mr. LaRivière will ensure the public learns every detail. If you push this injustice any further, we will take it all the way to the United States Supreme Court if we must. I refuse to agree to any of what you’re suggesting.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:11:20 – (struggling for control)* Alright… What is your name, sir – the investigative reporter on the line? Please state your full name for the record. Sir?
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:11:28 – My name is Rick LaRivière.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:11:33 – Rick… I’m sorry, you cut out. Your last name again?
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:11:35 – LaRivière – spelled R-I-V-I-E-R-E.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:11:41 – La… Riviera? R-I-V-I-E-R-E?
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:11:45 – R-I-V-I-E-R-E, Your Honor. LaRivière.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:11:50 – Very well, Mr. LaRivière. Let the record reflect: I have ruled that this contested case hearing is closed to the public pursuant to the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act – ORS 676.175 – and under the protective order entered in this case. I am now ordering you to disconnect from this hearing immediately.
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:12:17 – “Disconnect from the line”… And who exactly am I speaking to, may I ask? When were you elected or appointed as a judge?
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:12:24 – I am an Administrative Law Judge with the Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Oregon—
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:12:28 – Ah, I see – so you’re not an actual judge in the judicial branch. You’re an executive branch employee, correct? An administrative hearing officer. Which means you have no real judicial authority under Article III or its state equivalent. In other words, you’re not a real judge.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:12:42 – I am an Administrative Law—
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:12:43 – (pressing on)* – law judge in the executive branch, yes. So this is basically an executive branch enforcement action, not a judicial proceeding. You’re a fake judge wielding borrowed authority. And until a real judge – in the judicial branch – tells me the press can’t attend an executive branch hearing, I’m not budging. I’ve got all day, Your Honor. Feel free to go get an order from a real court – in Oregon or anywhere in America – explicitly stating there’s no free speech, no free press, and no right to petition the government anymore. I’ll wait.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:13:11 – Mr. LaRivière, if you refuse to get off this line, I will continue this hearing and reconvene it as an in-person hearing, where you will not be allowed in.
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:13:22 – I want to note: I have no affiliation with Ms. Jones-Soderman or her Foundation, beyond being an independent reporter covering this story. Why would you penalize her – the litigant – just because a member of the free press is present? That is blatant bias, Your Honor.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:13:41 – (exasperated)* This is pointless. If the investigative reporter will not leave willingly, then—
JILL JONES-SODERMAN: 00:13:45 – (resolute) He’s not going to leave, Judge, no matter what you do. And let me be equally clear: I am not going to Oregon for any in-person hearing. Not now, not on October 20th, not ever.
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:14:01 – (fervent)* Let the record also reflect: I’m not taking cues from Ms. Jones-Soderman on whether I stay or go. Nothing she could say – and nothing you could say – will deter me from protecting children from being murdered and abused by a corrupt Oregon family court system. There is no threat you can levy against her that would change my mind and make me abandon my post as a reporter. Therefore, any punishment or penalty you’re threatening against Ms. Jones-Soderman because of my presence is surely unconstitutional. Frankly, this is one of the craziest hearings I’ve ever witnessed. It’s Kafkaesque. I thought this was America – not North Korea. This is straight out of the Pyongyang playbook. It’s insane!
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:14:42 – (seething)* That’s enough. I’m excluding you from this hearing, Mr. LaRivière—
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:14:49 – —from the hearing? On what grounds, Judge? Tell me, are you excluding me because I’m Black? Because I’m a journalist? Or is it both?
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:14:58 – Yes. And I am also excluding you because this hearing is closed to the public. It is confidential, subject to a protective order, and you have no right to be here.
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:15:08 – It’s an executive-branch protective order, Judge – not a real court order. In other words, a fake protective order from a fake court. What is this, super double-secret probation or something?
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:15:21 – Mr. LaRivière, I am asking you one last time: get off this line.
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:15:24 – I’m here defending the First Amendment and standing up for the children, and I’m not going anywhere.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:15:30 – (frustrated, deliberating)* Very well. Mr. LaRivière, since you will not disconnect, I am left with no choice but to postpone and reconvert this proceeding to an in-person hearing in Oregon—
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:15:42 – Oregon? Fine by me. Maybe I will come to Oregon. And I guarantee you I’ll have colleagues in Oregon attend that hearing as well.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:15:52 – Now, Ms. Bertoni, we will proceed with scheduling. Let’s talk about dates to reconvene this hearing in person, in the next few weeks. The Board has indicated it can make itself available broadly.
JILL JONES-SODERMAN: 00:15:55 – *(coldly) Do whatever you want. I’ve stated my position: I am not attending any in-person hearing. I’m going to hang up now and return to my work. This entire stunt is a violation of my constitutional rights – and now you’re trying to end-run the Constitution and my right to a fair, open hearing by dragging me into a situation that only deepens the prejudice against me. I will not be there. Schedule whatever you want and send your notices; I will respond in writing. Then I’ll see you in court on appeal.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:16:55 – *(dryly) So noted, Ms. Jones-Soderman. We’ll be glad to “go through the motions” and get this up to the Supreme Court, if that’s where you take it. This will indeed be a public issue, one way or another. Now, moving on. Ms. RACHEL E. BERTONI, given the contemptuous and disruptive behavior by Mr. LaRivière – and apparently by Ms. Jones-Soderman – I am converting this to an in-person hearing. What is the Board’s availability, please?
OREGON COUNSEL RACHEL E. BERTONI: 00:17:10 – Your Honor, the Board can make itself available Monday, October 20th through Thursday, October 23rd, 2025. Any of those dates would work for us. If none suit Your Honor’s schedule, we can find alternatives. And, given that Ms. Jones-Soderman just declared she will not attend, her schedule may be a moot point. Is Monday, October 20th feasible for you, Judge?
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:18:02 – Yes. Monday, October 20, 2025 works for me.
OREGON COUNSEL RACHEL E. BERTONI: 00:18:05 – Wonderful. Will the hearing be held at the OAH Salem office, or another location (for example, the OAH Wilsonville office)?
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:18:10 – We will convene at the Salem OAH office. And I will direct that appropriate security arrangements be made for the hearing.
JILL JONES-SODERMAN: 00:18:15 – (with bitter irony) Salem and a witch hunt – how appropriate. That date and location are just perfect for your witch trial, Judge. We’ll be sure to publicize it widely. I’m sure a large crowd from the public will show up… minus me, of course.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:18:30 – Let the record show: I am granting the continuance. This hearing is hereby continued and will reconvene in-person on Monday, October 20, 2025 at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Salem, Oregon. The OAH will issue a formal Notice of Hearing for the in-person proceeding, with all pertinent details for the parties and witnesses. I am converting this matter from a phone conference to an in-person hearing so that all necessary participants can appear in person.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:18:55 – Furthermore, Ms. Jones-Soderman, be advised: if you do not appear at the in-person hearing on October 20, 2025, you will be declared in default. The Board will then present its case in your absence, and a default order will be issued against you.
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:19:38 – (persistent, to ensure clarity)* Before we wrap up, Your Honor, to complete the record: let’s be clear about something. The full extent of this investigative journalist’s so-called “disruptive” behavior today was that I was present and that I asked questions. That’s it.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:19:50 – *(raising hand to ear) Excuse me, Mr. LaRivière – you were breaking up. What did you say just now?
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:19:53 – I said the only disruption caused by this reporter was simply being here and asking questions, Your Honor.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:20:06 – *(firmly) No. The disruption was that you were asked repeatedly to leave – because under Oregon law this hearing is closed – and you refused. You had no permission to be here. Your refusal to comply forced us into continuing and rescheduling this proceeding so it can be held in the confidential manner the law requires.
RICK LARIVIÈRE – INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: 00:20:38 – Oh, so the record will reflect that you chose to suspend the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment, and the Oregon Constitution today. Understood. Thank you – we’ve got that on the record.
OAH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JENNIFER H. RACKSTRAW: 00:20:49 – *(coolly) Very well. With that, we will conclude today’s proceeding. I have granted the Board’s motion and officially converted this matter to an in-person hearing on October 20, 2025, in Salem, Oregon. A written notice of the rescheduled hearing will be issued to all parties.
(The ALJ pauses and scans for any further statements.)
There being nothing further, this hearing is adjourned.
OREGON COUNSEL RACHEL E. BERTONI: 00:20:55 – Thank you, Judge. (faintly) Thank you… Bye-bye.
[End of proceeding]
