By Levi Bakke
Published September 7, 2025
On April 18, 2025, Union County Circuit Court Judge Jared Boyd issued an "Opinion and Order" that summarily dismissed my filings in the guardianship case of Russell Bingaman, barred me from any future filings, and admonished me for my involvement. He characterized my efforts as a "profound misunderstanding" of the law and accused me of acting as an improper "proxy" for Russell's widow, Patricia.
His opinion is not just wrong; it is a fundamental misapplication of the law that sidesteps due process to silence inconvenient truths. I have since filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus with the Oregon Supreme Court to compel the lower court to follow the law.
This article is my public rebuttal to Judge Boyd's assertions.
Judge Boyd used the narrowest possible interpretation of Oregon statute ORS 125.075 to claim I had no standing as an "interested person" in Russell's welfare. He argued that since I am not a direct family member, I do not qualify.
He is wrong. The statute is intentionally broad, allowing for "Any person who is interested in the affairs or welfare of a... protected person" to be heard. More importantly, the law is crystal clear on the procedure: if objections are filed, the court "shall schedule a hearing". The word "shall" is a legal command, not a suggestion.
Judge Boyd denied me that mandatory hearing. He jumped to a conclusion without allowing me to present the evidence—including a sworn, notarized letter from Russell's wife of 58 years detailing my extensive, months-long advocacy for Russell's well-being. He bypassed the required legal process to arrive at a predetermined outcome. This is not a misunderstanding on my part; it is a denial of due process on his.
The order repeatedly paints me as a surrogate for Patricia, litigating her personal grievances. This is a deliberate mischaracterization designed to dismiss the substance of my objections.
The facts say otherwise. My legal filings focused exclusively on quantifiable harm done to Russell Bingaman. I objected to a $28,386 mathematical error in his final accounting. I presented evidence that he was held against his will and subjected to improper surcharges for visitation. I raised questions about his chemical restraint and the potential for billing fraud.
These are not Patricia’s feelings; they are documented facts about the mismanagement of Russell’s finances and person. My advocacy was for Russell, first and last. The fact that his wife's interests aligned with his own is natural, not evidence of a conspiracy. The judge's "proxy" narrative is a fiction created to avoid confronting the evidence of neglect and financial irregularities I presented.
In a baffling passage, Judge Boyd suggests my actions are "precisely why there are rules regarding the licensing of attorneys".
This is a gross misapplication of the law. The prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law prevents a non-lawyer from acting as an attorney for another person. I never claimed to represent Patricia Bingaman. I filed every document pro se—on behalf of myself, Levi Bakke, as an interested person. This is a fundamental right of any citizen.
By conflating my pro se status with illegally representing someone else, the judge is attempting to intimidate and delegitimize a citizen's right to access the courts. I was not acting as an unlicensed attorney; I was acting as an engaged citizen demanding accountability, as is my right.
The order justifies its summary ruling by citing an "ongoing bombardment of motions".
This is a subjective complaint, not a legal justification. I entered the case after Russell’s death and filed five items over seven weeks to establish a record of the evidence I had compiled—evidence that state agencies and others had ignored for months. I specifically requested rulings on written filings to spare the court time and resources. To frame this diligence as a "bombardment" is to punish a party for being thorough.
The judge’s order was not about correcting a citizen's "profound misunderstanding." It was about shutting down a line of inquiry that exposed serious questions about the actions of fiduciaries, attorneys, and care facilities within this community.
By denying a mandatory hearing, mischaracterizing my motives, and misapplying the law on pro se rights, the court constructed a legal blockade to prevent evidence from being heard. That is why I have escalated this fight to the Oregon Supreme Court. The law must apply to everyone, and due process cannot be set aside for convenience.
A redacted version of the Writ of Mandamus can be viewed on the website: www.Valor-Investigations.com
What drives this investigation forward is every door that shuts, every unlawful order, every botched investigation, and every lie told to conceal the truth. Systems built on integrity do not erect blockades against transparency; those that are corrupt do.
Let this serve as a public notice to every doctor, nurse, lawyer, judge, and public official: If you fail in your duty, if you ignore your obligations as a mandatory reporter, if you lie under oath or abuse your authority, you will be reported. You will be investigated and those results will become public for this community to see. And I will not take "no" for an answer.
I plan to give classes to empower this community to fight for themselves. It has become apparent that this system is bullying the very citizens it's supposed to SERVE. That needs to END.
If anyone knows of a place we can make this happen, reach out to me with the subject line "space available".