About This Page
The documents below are official court filings related to Mangum v. Oregon Board of Tax Practitioners, filed in Marion County Circuit Court. (there is an unofficial email in there at the end which helps explain the reason for five related filings.)
These materials are provided for transparency and public accountability under Oregon’s Public Records Law and related constitutional principles. All documents are shown in their original form with only minor redactions or omissions of signature pages and select exhibits containing semi-personal information.
Timeline of Filings
View Timeline
Timeline of filing events from day 1 (Feb 2, 2025) through the current date (or mostly current).
Complaint and Amendment
View Complaint and Amendment
Original Complaint (Feb 10, 2025)
Amended Complaint (Feb 18, 2025)
OBTP’s Pleading(s)/Answer(s)
View OBTP’s Pleading(s)/Answer(s)
Defendant’s Answers to Amended Complaint (April 4, 2025)
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
View Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (March 3, 2025)
Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction (March 3, 2025)
Plaintiff’s Exhibits in Support of Preliminary Injunction (March 3, 2025)
Motion for Summary Judgment
View Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (April 21, 2025)
Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment (April 21, 2025)
Plaintiff’s Exhibits in Support of Summary Judgment (April 21, 2025)
Other Motions and Filings
View Other Motions and Filings (and an ex parte email to opposing party that I shall refrain from commenting on…)
The Email NOT Requesting an Extension by OBTP (April 17, 2025)
Plaintiff’s Objection to Extension of Time and Renewed Demand for Hearing (April 17, 2025)
OBTP never officially (filed any documents) or unofficially (email) requested an extension of time to respond to the 45+ day old motion for preliminary injunction (the deadline for their time to respond was ~March 17, 2025). Unofficial email below where OBTP expressed “intent,” but never actually requested an extension from the court. Judge granted the non-requested extension anyway.