|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Aug 14, 2018 11:41:18 GMT -8
The fact that he wrote "felony" if it was a "misdemeanor" isn't relevant.BS. That mistake - which is huge, legally - has been repeated in every single story about Luke. He was never even charged with a felony, much less convicted of one. In the "eyes of the law," the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor is as wide as the Grand Canyon. In no way are they even remotely similar. I suspect if you got charged with a felony in a misdemeanor case you would not see it as irrelevant. You are obscuring the issue by using a straw man's argument. The reason that everyone freaked out about Luke Heimlich was not because they thought that he committed a felony. It was because he admitted in writing in open court that he had sexually molested his niece. In order for LH to recover dollar one from The Oregonian, he would have to prove that he missed out on his millions of dollars, because The Oregonian wrote the word "felony," which is a supremely dopey argument to make in my opinion. There is also an argument to be made that, as the State of Oregon uses the terms, LH was a "convicted felon." And it is because he was a "convicted felon" that he had to register as a sex offender. And it was because he was a "convicted felon" that there was the whole kerfuffle about him having to register again as a 21-year-old sex offender. You argue the rest of the straw man's argument that you are making well. You simply can not resist the opportunity for the "holier than thou" posts on this topic. You've been blatantly wrong on this so many times it is beginning to be annoyingly stupid!!! I realize this is NOT your area of the law, but as a legal professional your overt ignorance on this issue is astounding. For all the numerous others posts/posters that have proven you wrong on almost every count... except your obviously closed minded bias... AGAIN... NEVER CONVICTED NEVER FELON No matter how many times you post and want to believe it... your WRONG and consistently make a mockery of your professional standing. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Aug 14, 2018 12:22:56 GMT -8
You are obscuring the issue by using a straw man's argument. The reason that everyone freaked out about Luke Heimlich was not because they thought that he committed a felony. It was because he admitted in writing in open court that he had sexually molested his niece. In order for LH to recover dollar one from The Oregonian, he would have to prove that he missed out on his millions of dollars, because The Oregonian wrote the word "felony," which is a supremely dopey argument to make in my opinion. There is also an argument to be made that, as the State of Oregon uses the terms, LH was a "convicted felon." And it is because he was a "convicted felon" that he had to register as a sex offender. And it was because he was a "convicted felon" that there was the whole kerfuffle about him having to register again as a 21-year-old sex offender. You argue the rest of the straw man's argument that you are making well. You simply can not resist the opportunity for the "holier than thou" posts on this topic. You've been blatantly wrong on this so many times it is beginning to be annoyingly stupid!!! I realize this is NOT your area of the law, but as a legal professional your overt ignorance on this issue is astounding. For all the numerous others posts/posters that have proven you wrong on almost every count... except your obviously closed minded bias... AGAIN... NEVER CONVICTED NEVER FELON No matter how many times you post and want to believe it... your WRONG and consistently make a mockery of your professional standing. You're, not "your." We are all biased. We all have biases. I am biased. You are biased. Humans are inherently biased. It is one of the things that allows us to store and retrieve information quickly in our brains. It allows us to navigate a complex world. You saying that I am biased is to say that I am human, which I accept. Having gone through this whole rigmarole with you previously, as your custom, it appears that you concede all relevant points and now wish to discuss my secondary fallback argument. Fine. LH was never convicted of a felony in the State of Washington. The State of Oregon defines a prior "conviction" to include adjudicated minors, who committed what would be a crime in the State of Oregon. LH admitted to sexually assaulting a 6-year-old as a 15-year-old, a felony if committed in the State of Oregon. Pursuant to the defined laws of the State of Oregon, he is a "convicted felon." Because LH is a "convicted felon" and committed a "sex crime," as that term is defined in the State of Oregon, he must register as a sex offender in the State of Oregon. Your argument in which you have "proven" me incorrect can be summed up in four words. "I know a guy." You may know a guy. And between him and I, we may be playing a dystopian game of telephone with baseba11 as the telephone. If you do know a guy, ask him, if Luke Heimlich committed a second "sex crime" before August 27, 2017, would his prior juvenile adjudication qualify as a prior "felony conviction" of a "sex crime" under the laws of the State of Oregon. From my reading of the statutes, I think that it is clear that it does. However, I am only human, and I may be wrong. As we all are from time-to-time. Your other opinions have been noted again. |
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Aug 14, 2018 12:40:38 GMT -8
There is also an argument to be made that, as the State of Oregon uses the terms, LH was a "convicted felon." That argument fails miserably. The way that the State of Oregon "uses the terms" has exactly zero bearing on LH's legal status. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Aug 14, 2018 12:54:06 GMT -8
If Heimlich were to plead guilty to the analogous juvenile crime in Oregon, he would still be in prison. If you seriously believe that Heimlich wouldn't have fought the charge if he was facing a multi-year prison term, then you need your head examined, because you're presenting a false flag by claiming Luke would "still be in prison if he lived in Oregon." the risk/reward factor is ALL that really matters in choosing to plea bargain vs taking it to trial. A false flag usually connotes that a person (or more usually a country or group) is attacking himself, so that he has a moral justification to do something. Examples would include the Mukden Incident, the Gleiwitz Incident, the Shelling of Mainila, and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. I do not presume to know what Heimlich would have done, if he was charged with a similar crime in Oregon. I know that it took him more than eight months from accusation to adjudication in the State of Washington. One would imagine that it would have taken at least as long in the State of Oregon, in order to determine whether LH was guilty or not. I believe that he probably sexually assaulted his niece, as the contrary position tends to raise far more questions than it answers. However, I do not know, if the State of Oregon would have been able to marshal the evidence to prove guilt or how long it would have taken to reach that conclusion. We do have some handpicked facts that were disclosed by Luke Heimlich and his parents after the rest of the case was sealed, which are generally favorable to LH. However, most of LH's case is sealed in the State of Washington, so we do not have all of the facts that would have been presented in an actual trial. My reading of the case is that, if LH had hired a decent attorney, he probably would be pitching professionally today. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Aug 14, 2018 13:11:19 GMT -8
There is also an argument to be made that, as the State of Oregon uses the terms, LH was a "convicted felon." That argument fails miserably. The way that the State of Oregon "uses the terms" has exactly zero bearing on LH's legal status. We are looking at The Oregonian's use of the terms. The Oregonian is within the State of Oregon, as was Luke Heimlich at the time of publishing. Thus, the relevant analysis would be how those terms are used in the State of Oregon. I have worked on defamation cases that turn on whether the word "herpes" means herpes complex or can include herpes simplex. What The Oregonian wrote was clearly incorrect under the laws of the State of Washington. I tend to think that the article link above was a means of making sure that The Oregonian could not be sued by LH for defamation. If memory serves, I would also note that LH admitted that he was a "convicted felon" in the New York Times article. I believe that the tone of The Oregonian article was inflammatory. But I tend to think that LH, his parents, and his legal counsel utterly failed to protect LH from The Oregonian. That specifically includes not responding to The Oregonian's request for comment. Further, I think that LH did himself a disservice by speaking to the New York Times this year and answering their questions the way that he did. Once this whole thing started, LH needed to come out guns blazing or needed to issue a heartfelt apology. Either would have played decently in my opinion. It seemed like he chose to half-heartedly try both apologizing, while simultaneously half-heartedly attacking the victim. Needless to say, it did not go over very well. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Aug 14, 2018 14:29:07 GMT -8
You simply can not resist the opportunity for the "holier than thou" posts on this topic. You've been blatantly wrong on this so many times it is beginning to be annoyingly stupid!!! I realize this is NOT your area of the law, but as a legal professional your overt ignorance on this issue is astounding. For all the numerous others posts/posters that have proven you wrong on almost every count... except your obviously closed minded bias... AGAIN... NEVER CONVICTED NEVER FELON No matter how many times you post and want to believe it... your WRONG and consistently make a mockery of your professional standing. You're, not "your." We are all biased. We all have biases. I am biased. You are biased. Humans are inherently biased. It is one of the things that allows us to store and retrieve information quickly in our brains. It allows us to navigate a complex world. You saying that I am biased is to say that I am human, which I accept. Having gone through this whole rigmarole with you previously, as your custom, it appears that you concede all relevant points and now wish to discuss my secondary fallback argument. Fine. LH was never convicted of a felony in the State of Washington. The State of Oregon defines a prior "conviction" to include adjudicated minors, who committed what would be a crime in the State of Oregon. LH admitted to sexually assaulting a 6-year-old as a 15-year-old, a felony if committed in the State of Oregon. Pursuant to the defined laws of the State of Oregon, he is a "convicted felon." Because LH is a "convicted felon" and committed a "sex crime," as that term is defined in the State of Oregon, he must register as a sex offender in the State of Oregon. Your argument in which you have "proven" me incorrect can be summed up in four words. "I know a guy." You may know a guy. And between him and I, we may be playing a dystopian game of telephone with baseba11 as the telephone. If you do know a guy, ask him, if Luke Heimlich committed a second "sex crime" before August 27, 2017, would his prior juvenile adjudication qualify as a prior "felony conviction" of a "sex crime" under the laws of the State of Oregon. From my reading of the statutes, I think that it is clear that it does. However, I am only human, and I may be wrong. As we all are from time-to-time. Your other opinions have been noted again. Not only have you stuck your foot in your mouth on numerous occasions, you continue to utilize the same false arguments you like to point out to others. You continually circle to Oregon law and interpretations which have zero to do with Luke's case and adjudication. And for that matter, as does the opinion of any DA in Oregon. You also seem to have a VERY, VERY short attention span and memory to boot! Numerous posters including myself have posted legal writings on the topic that generally show just how "off the wall" you are on this topic. Rereading the Martin Meyer articles, might jog your memory. Bias is one thing, but repeated ignorance and argumentation when faced with clear facts (over and over) from those far more knowledgeable is the definition of _______. You seem to have the ability to sell yourself any "bill of sale" to salve your obviously needy self esteem concerning this issue. Keep focusing on the grammar aspect... and the researching/posting of OSU related facts. Although available to anyone with the time and interest to do so, at least you seem ______. Fill in the blanks... you seem to be very "creative" in such endeavors. |
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Aug 14, 2018 14:45:57 GMT -8
This whole thing is absurd. I think we're all upset at the Oregonian because it made Oregon State look bad, not Luke Heimlich.
If this was about Luke, I would think a lot more anger and questions would be directed towards whatever authority it was that set the wheels in motion for him to be erroneously charged with failure to report. THAT is was caused the problem here.
The Oregonian is a convenient bad guy for us all because then we can get mad at them every time they write something bad about the Beavs. Brenda Tracy is a convenient bad guy because her opinions carry weight with society right now, and when she talks it makes OSU look bad, but nobody seems to be mad at the cops or the legal system, including the Heimlichs, which seems super strange to me.
Also, why has that authority not been sued? Why does everyone want to sue the Oregonian? Why not OSP or DHS or CPD or BCSO or whomever it was that jacked this whole process up in the first place? Why has Luke not sued that team for loss of potential earnings? It seems he could at least sue for the loss of a probably first round signing bonus of $1M or so.
This whole witch hunt with what words were used in what story and who said them is crap. On the justice for luke website, I pulled this nugget:
The Benton County, Oregon, charge was dismissed May 17, 2017, and the 6/8/17 Mark Katches article in the Oregonian said Danny Moran did a background check on Luke Heimlich May 18. The subsequent expungement court order was issued November 27, 2017. The delay in sealing that record led to all the ensuing trauma suffered by the Heimlich family and countless others.
(Nevermind that this is kind of ignoring the fact that a background check pulled the day after a case dismissal will almost certainly always contain the case in question regardless of how fast it is expedited.)
|
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Aug 14, 2018 15:08:55 GMT -8
This whole thing is absurd. I think we're all upset at the Oregonian because it made Oregon State look bad, not Luke Heimlich. If this was about Luke, I would think a lot more anger and questions would be directed towards whatever authority it was that set the wheels in motion for him to be erroneously charged with failure to report. THAT is was caused the problem here. The Oregonian is a convenient bad guy for us all because then we can get mad at them every time they write something bad about the Beavs. Brenda Tracy is a convenient bad guy because her opinions carry weight with society right now, and when she talks it makes OSU look bad, but nobody seems to be mad at the cops or the legal system, including the Heimlichs, which seems super strange to me. Also, why has that authority not been sued? Why does everyone want to sue the Oregonian? Why not OSP or DHS or CPD or BCSO or whomever it was that jacked this whole process up in the first place? Why has Luke not sued that team for loss of potential earnings? It seems he could at least sue for the loss of a probably first round signing bonus of $1M or so. This whole witch hunt with what words were used in what story and who said them is crap. On the justice for luke website, I pulled this nugget: The Benton County, Oregon, charge was dismissed May 17, 2017, and the 6/8/17 Mark Katches article in the Oregonian said Danny Moran did a background check on Luke Heimlich May 18. The subsequent expungement court order was issued November 27, 2017. The delay in sealing that record led to all the ensuing trauma suffered by the Heimlich family and countless others. (Nevermind that this is kind of ignoring the fact that a background check pulled the day after a case dismissal will almost certainly always contain the case in question regardless of how fast it is expedited.) No, I am upset with the Oregonian because it grossly erred in judgement. I don't think we can deny that most of us have looked more closely at this issue because it involves OSU. but the core of my annoyance is not that Oregon State looks bad. It is that the Oregonian lit a dumpster fire for clicks, skipped away from it and left nothing positive in its wake. Luke's career is over. the little girl has no justice and is now widely known in her small community. the family's drama is been expose for the whole world to see. Literally nothing positive came from this. I get that not all news is going to be good news. But the Oregonian had a choice to make... and the harm they cause by far outweighs any good that possibly could of come from this (if any at all). |
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Aug 14, 2018 16:42:33 GMT -8
In many people’s minds, yes. Exactly. In the end you make "martyrs" out of the journalists and they won't lose in a case like this and the cluster turns into book deals and moving up the pyramid till they are the old sage talking heads that networks bring out to show the "brave face" of fair and balanced journalism. It is super difficult to make any law suit stick on a journalist, especially in a mess like this. It may be tough - but not impossible. I can think of some high profile politicians that have recently been allowed to skate (unfortunately), but in this case, whoever screwed up by making public what was intended to be private - should be held accountable. Simply hiding behind the 1st Amendment (which actually doesn't apply, but that is a different subject) while you unnecessarily destroy a young man's career for money is disgusting.
At this station of life, my attitude is quickly becoming treat all people as you would wish to be treated, and when they figuratively kick you in the gonads - go after them with a vengeance. You mean to tell me there isn't anywhere in the country a lawyer that would take a case like this pro bono, with the possibility of getting roughly half of a settlement? You mean a good attorney could not monetize the value of the clicks for this story, and go after the profit? Add to that the slot value of a 1st round draft pick? I find it hard to believe in the era of ambulance chasers that advertise 24/7 on TV, that someone would not be willing to step up. Even if ultimately the suit against the Oregonian and Linn/ Benton County for unsealing his juvenile record failed, thus defaming his character and lost wages to boot - at least it would cost a pile of money for the little O and Linn/Benton counties to defend the suit, which is a moral victory, in my mind. Newspapers are no longer the juggernaut they once were, and a large lawsuit might actually go a long way toward putting them out of their misery.
I am tired of a society that seems to think it can impune, destroy and convict in the court of public opinion those individuals that have not had a full and fair hearing of the facts. Especially when some of the loudest critics live in glass houses, and like to throw rocks.
|
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Aug 14, 2018 18:35:36 GMT -8
That argument fails miserably. The way that the State of Oregon "uses the terms" has exactly zero bearing on LH's legal status. We are looking at The Oregonian's use of the terms. The Oregonian is within the State of Oregon, as was Luke Heimlich at the time of publishing. Thus, the relevant analysis would be how those terms are used in the State of Oregon. I have worked on defamation cases that turn on whether the word "herpes" means herpes complex or can include herpes simplex. What The Oregonian wrote was clearly incorrect under the laws of the State of Washington. I tend to think that the article link above was a means of making sure that The Oregonian could not be sued by LH for defamation. If memory serves, I would also note that LH admitted that he was a "convicted felon" in the New York Times article. I believe that the tone of The Oregonian article was inflammatory. But I tend to think that LH, his parents, and his legal counsel utterly failed to protect LH from The Oregonian. That specifically includes not responding to The Oregonian's request for comment. Further, I think that LH did himself a disservice by speaking to the New York Times this year and answering their questions the way that he did. Once this whole thing started, LH needed to come out guns blazing or needed to issue a heartfelt apology. Either would have played decently in my opinion. It seemed like he chose to half-heartedly try both apologizing, while simultaneously half-heartedly attacking the victim. Needless to say, it did not go over very well. The way John Foote is talking...it feels like a case in which Heimlich would have had to go to trial if the case had occurred in Oregon. |
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Aug 14, 2018 18:49:39 GMT -8
Clackamas County's District Attorney, John Foote, on Luke Heimlich.We are looking at The Oregonian's use of the terms. The Oregonian is within the State of Oregon, as was Luke Heimlich at the time of publishing. Thus, the relevant analysis would be how those terms are used in the State of Oregon. I have worked on defamation cases that turn on whether the word "herpes" means herpes complex or can include herpes simplex. What The Oregonian wrote was clearly incorrect under the laws of the State of Washington. I tend to think that the article link above was a means of making sure that The Oregonian could not be sued by LH for defamation. If memory serves, I would also note that LH admitted that he was a "convicted felon" in the New York Times article. I believe that the tone of The Oregonian article was inflammatory. But I tend to think that LH, his parents, and his legal counsel utterly failed to protect LH from The Oregonian. That specifically includes not responding to The Oregonian's request for comment. Further, I think that LH did himself a disservice by speaking to the New York Times this year and answering their questions the way that he did. Once this whole thing started, LH needed to come out guns blazing or needed to issue a heartfelt apology. Either would have played decently in my opinion. It seemed like he chose to half-heartedly try both apologizing, while simultaneously half-heartedly attacking the victim. Needless to say, it did not go over very well. The way John Foote is talking...it feels like a case in which Heimlich would have had to go to trial if the case had occurred in Oregon. It sounds like a case he would not have pleaded guilty to, but would have chosen to go to trial. Foote is speaking from the perspective that Heimlich was either found guilty or took the plea. |
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Aug 14, 2018 19:20:53 GMT -8
The fact that he wrote "felony" if it was a "misdemeanor" isn't relevant.BS. That mistake - which is huge, legally - has been repeated in every single story about Luke. He was never even charged with a felony, much less convicted of one. In the "eyes of the law," the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor is as wide as the Grand Canyon. In no way are they even remotely similar. I suspect if you got charged with a felony in a misdemeanor case you would not see it as irrelevant. You are obscuring the issue by using a straw man's argument. The reason that everyone freaked out about Luke Heimlich was not because they thought that he committed a felony. It was because he admitted in writing in open court that he had sexually molested his niece. In order for LH to recover dollar one from The Oregonian, he would have to prove that he missed out on his millions of dollars, because The Oregonian wrote the word "felony," which is a supremely dopey argument to make in my opinion. There is also an argument to be made that, as the State of Oregon uses the terms, LH was a "convicted felon." And it is because he was a "convicted felon" that he had to register as a sex offender. And it was because he was a "convicted felon" that there was the whole kerfuffle about him having to register again as a 21-year-old sex offender. You argue the rest of the straw man's argument that you are making well. Thank you for your excellent translation of my argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Aug 14, 2018 19:54:58 GMT -8
He can "translate" your argument any way he wants. He's wrong, on every level.
Luke Heimlich is not now, and has never been, a felon. For that to happen, one must be convicted of a felony. He wasn't. In fact, he was never even charged with one. Sorry you and he can't deal with that fact.
The facts are never a "straw man's argument," whatever that is.
|
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Aug 14, 2018 19:57:32 GMT -8
The way John Foote is talking...it feels like a case in which Heimlich would have had to go to trial if the case had occurred in Oregon. It sounds like a case he would not have pleaded guilty to, but would have chosen to go to trial. Foote is speaking from the perspective that Heimlich was either found guilty or took the plea. That was the point of my comment. If Heimlich would still be in custody to this day, that makes me think that, under Measure 11, a plea deal for Luke would have included at least six years of custody and, I'm guessing, lifetime registration as a sex offender. I don't know what Measure 11 sentencing is like for Luke's crime, but it sounds like there is very little leeway at the bargaining table. In such a case, the defendant virtually has to go to trial because of the lack of room to bargain under Measure 11. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Aug 14, 2018 22:40:21 GMT -8
He can "translate" your argument any way he wants. He's wrong, on every level. Luke Heimlich is not now, and has never been, a felon. For that to happen, one must be convicted of a felony. He wasn't. In fact, he was never even charged with one. Sorry you and he can't deal with that fact. The facts are never a "straw man's argument," whatever that is. I don't want the point to get lost, because it seems like you are moving the goalposts. I thought that we were talking about an action against The Oregonian. If we are talking about that, in order to recover dollar one, LH must prove that he lost money, not because he admitted to sexually assaulting his niece in writing, but because the 30 Major League baseball teams were concerned that he was a convicted felon, when he in fact he was not. That is nonsense in my opinion. The 30 baseball teams did not draft Heimlich, because of the facts of the matter, not a misunderstanding about whether such actions constituted a "felony" or not. If we are talking about a lawsuit against The Oregonian, the word "felony" is a red herring. Factual or not, an argument based on the word "felony" would be a straw man's argument. What is your point? Until then, no one has to "deal" with anything. It has already been dealt with. |
|
