|
|
Post by nabeav on Aug 15, 2018 7:37:17 GMT -8
wilkyisdashiznit would you agree that there's a stronger case for recovering lost wages by taking action against law enforcement? If they don't charge him (and everyone seems to agree that the charge was erroneous) with failure to report, he's almost certainly a first round draft pick right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Aug 15, 2018 9:42:06 GMT -8
I have no idea about a lawsuit. My point is, you should stop referring to him as a "convicted felon," which he is not.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Aug 15, 2018 12:16:39 GMT -8
wilkyisdashiznit would you agree that there's a stronger case for recovering lost wages by taking action against law enforcement? If they don't charge him (and everyone seems to agree that the charge was erroneous) with failure to report, he's almost certainly a first round draft pick right? The citation was dismissed because of "insufficient evidence of Defendant's knowledge of Oregon reporting requirements." Basically, Benton County determined that the law had been broken, but that LH lacked intent to break the law. I.e. Actus reus but no mens rea. It is somewhat unusual for a citation to be dismissed for a lack of mens rea, but that is what Benton County appears to have done. I believe that the Law of the State of Oregon requires "residents" to register within X amount of time after 21. I believe that, as written, LH was probably a "resident." I think that LH did not believe that he had to comply, because he was complying with the requirements of Pierce County and the State of Washington. (I believe that his attorney argued that he was "domicled" in Pierce County, Washington and so the laws of Pierce County and the State of Washington applied rather than the laws of Benton County and State of Oregon. It appears that Benton County bought this argument.) With the way the dismissal was worded, I do not think that they have a case against Benton County. If they made the argument that it was a no harm, no foul situation, then they are probably foreclosed from appealing. If the wording of the dismissal does not match the argument made, theoretically, they should have appealed. But I believe that LH and his attorney were probably not considering this eventuality. In the end, with the way that LH's citation was disposed of, it looks like Benton County did an excellent job of forestalling a lawsuit against it or its employees. Further, lawsuits against governmental entities are very difficult to file, very difficult to prove, and very difficult to win by design. I think a better lawsuit would be against his attorney at the hearing. (But that would turn on what the attorney knew. Maybe LH did not fill him in all the way? Or maybe his legal service agreement was for a limited purpose?) Similarly, I think that LH may have a lawsuit against his first attorney in the Pierce County case. Or, based on the stories on that Justice for Luke page, against Pierce County itself or current or former agents of Pierce County? (If LH's attorney knew that the prosecutor was wildly unethical, maybe LH's attorney gave him great advice, after all?) As I read all of this, the LH situation sounds like the Heimlichs may have hired the wrong attorney twice and are now suffering the consequences. I have gone up against attorneys that are out of their depth before. (Attorneys that do not regularly practice a specialized area of law, for example.) You can push cases so much further, when the other side does not have an attorney that knows how to push back. Or this may be a situation, where the Heimlichs freaked out, when an attorney was just covering himself/herself. "Listen, there is a chance that we could lose this one" sometimes becomes "This case is a 50-50 proposition" in a client's mind. Once that idea is there, it is often difficult to talk a client out of that mindset. |
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Aug 15, 2018 12:18:45 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. Actually, I believe he was and put into diversion with the understanding that if he behaved himself it would be dropped down to a misdemeanor and expunged. Evan so, stop fixating on "felony." He plead guilty to child molestation. Whether it was a felony or misdemeanor isn't relevant. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Aug 15, 2018 12:27:07 GMT -8
wilkyisdashiznit would you agree that there's a stronger case for recovering lost wages by taking action against law enforcement? If they don't charge him (and everyone seems to agree that the charge was erroneous) with failure to report, he's almost certainly a first round draft pick right? I should also add that I believe that there are Supreme Court opinions shielding police officers from suit for enforcing their interpretation of the law, so long as the interpretation was reasonable. |
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on Aug 15, 2018 12:35:22 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. Actually, I believe he was and put into diversion with the understanding that if he behaved himself it would be dropped down to a misdemeanor and expunged. Evan so, stop fixating on "felony." He plead guilty to child molestation. Whether it was a felony or misdemeanor isn't relevant. Wrong. He told you correctly. |
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Aug 15, 2018 12:37:09 GMT -8
Actually, I believe he was and put into diversion with the understanding that if he behaved himself it would be dropped down to a misdemeanor and expunged. Evan so, stop fixating on "felony." He plead guilty to child molestation. Whether it was a felony or misdemeanor isn't relevant. Wrong. He told you correctly. Um, no. Ok, instead of referring to him as a "convicted felon" I'll advise O-live to refer to him as the "Convicted Child Molester." |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Aug 15, 2018 18:48:39 GMT -8
I for one can’t get enough of this debate! Then again, I also love nails on a chalkboard.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Aug 15, 2018 18:48:51 GMT -8
Um, no. Ok, instead of referring to him as a "convicted felon" I'll advise O-live to refer to him as the "Convicted Child Molester." Show me where the bad man touched you, jdogge. Well, you routinely demonstrate the psychological traits associated with being too close to mommy. Anything you want to get off your chest? I mean, were you jealous of daddy? |
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Aug 15, 2018 18:54:31 GMT -8
wilkyisdashiznit would you agree that there's a stronger case for recovering lost wages by taking action against law enforcement? If they don't charge him (and everyone seems to agree that the charge was erroneous) with failure to report, he's almost certainly a first round draft pick right? The citation was dismissed because of "insufficient evidence of Defendant's knowledge of Oregon reporting requirements." Basically, Benton County determined that the law had been broken, but that LH lacked intent to break the law. I.e. Actus reus but no mens rea. It is somewhat unusual for a citation to be dismissed for a lack of mens rea, but that is what Benton County appears to have done. I believe that the Law of the State of Oregon requires "residents" to register within X amount of time after 21. I believe that, as written, LH was probably a "resident." I think that LH did not believe that he had to comply, because he was complying with the requirements of Pierce County and the State of Washington. (I believe that his attorney argued that he was "domicled" in Pierce County, Washington and so the laws of Pierce County and the State of Washington applied rather than the laws of Benton County and State of Oregon. It appears that Benton County bought this argument.) With the way the dismissal was worded, I do not think that they have a case against Benton County. If they made the argument that it was a no harm, no foul situation, then they are probably foreclosed from appealing. If the wording of the dismissal does not match the argument made, theoretically, they should have appealed. But I believe that LH and his attorney were probably not considering this eventuality. In the end, with the way that LH's citation was disposed of, it looks like Benton County did an excellent job of forestalling a lawsuit against it or its employees. Further, lawsuits against governmental entities are very difficult to file, very difficult to prove, and very difficult to win by design. I think a better lawsuit would be against his attorney at the hearing. (But that would turn on what the attorney knew. Maybe LH did not fill him in all the way? Or maybe his legal service agreement was for a limited purpose?) Similarly, I think that LH may have a lawsuit against his first attorney in the Pierce County case. Or, based on the stories on that Justice for Luke page, against Pierce County itself or current or former agents of Pierce County? (If LH's attorney knew that the prosecutor was wildly unethical, maybe LH's attorney gave him great advice, after all?) As I read all of this, the LH situation sounds like the Heimlichs may have hired the wrong attorney twice and are now suffering the consequences. I have gone up against attorneys that are out of their depth before. (Attorneys that do not regularly practice a specialized area of law, for example.) You can push cases so much further, when the other side does not have an attorney that knows how to push back. Or this may be a situation, where the Heimlichs freaked out, when an attorney was just covering himself/herself. "Listen, there is a chance that we could lose this one" sometimes becomes "This case is a 50-50 proposition" in a client's mind. Once that idea is there, it is often difficult to talk a client out of that mindset. Not fair. You're going to have some posters with their noses in a dictionary for the foreseeable future. I prefer the Oxford American myself. But that might be too heavy for beverfever. Of course, this might be good too. Then again, this other might be helpful. |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Aug 15, 2018 19:46:54 GMT -8
Wow. Relegated to the room with the Polish Dog discussion. How the mighty have fallen..
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Aug 15, 2018 19:57:51 GMT -8
I've decided to take a year off from commenting on the LH situation. Hopefully a year from now LH will either have gotten his shot at pro baseball and is working his way up the farm system or he's moved on to his post sports career like many of his other teammates. With an OSU degree, Pac-12 and NCAA championship rings and lifetime friends forged in competition. |
|
|
|
Post by Tigardbeav on Aug 15, 2018 20:39:37 GMT -8
Wow. Relegated to the room with the Polish Dog discussion. How the mighty have fallen.. just to merge the two topics The polish dog never had it's day in court!!! plus LH loves poliush dogs* *allegedly **can you spot my grammatical error? |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Aug 16, 2018 12:33:04 GMT -8
The citation was dismissed because of "insufficient evidence of Defendant's knowledge of Oregon reporting requirements." Basically, Benton County determined that the law had been broken, but that LH lacked intent to break the law. I.e. Actus reus but no mens rea. It is somewhat unusual for a citation to be dismissed for a lack of mens rea, but that is what Benton County appears to have done. I believe that the Law of the State of Oregon requires "residents" to register within X amount of time after 21. I believe that, as written, LH was probably a "resident."No. He wasn't.
Are you ever going to answer this?
You've been clearly avoiding doing so ... for quite some time now (several months).
In the order dismissing the citation, Benton County found that he was a "resident," pursuant to the definition in the statute. To argue otherwise is to make an argument that LH's attorney either did not make or an argument that LH's attorney made and failed on. Either way, you are Monday morning quarterbacking in my opinion. The typical definition of a "resident" is someone physically living at an apartment or house, regardless of whether that individual intends to stay. (A person who stays at a hotel or something of the like that would be a different situation entirely.) And the typical definition of the word "domicile" is different than a "resident." One who is "domiciled" generally lives somewhere and intends to remain in that place for the foreseeable future. In college situations, it is often difficult to figure out, if one is "domiciled" in one state versus another or "residing" in one state versus another. It sometimes affects things like voting rights. If you are from Washington but go to school in Oregon, can you vote in Oregon? To answer your link, I have not been avoiding. I thought that obf had a great post to end the discussion. And then you posted another post and did not respond to one of my posts or tag me in it, so I did not see it. According to Sports Illustrated, LH is a "convicted child molester." I believe that LH has admitted to being "convicted" to the New York Times after his case was sealed (who in the heck thought it was a good idea to let him speak to the Times?) and a molesting his niece, who was a child, is what LH admitted to in writing. I believe that someone could describe him as a "convicted child molester" and be technically correct under the laws of the State of Oregon. I am sure that you could say lots of things about LH and be technically correct, though. |
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Aug 16, 2018 13:56:21 GMT -8
His record is expunged. He's none of the above. This is like saying Reggie Bush never won the Heisman or Chris Webber never called that timeout or Ben Johnson didn't run 9.79 in 1988. It happened, regardless of what we qualify it as now. |
|
