|
|
Post by kersting13 on Aug 16, 2018 14:17:41 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. No, it's like saying Reggie Bush does not have a Heisman Trophy, and Ben Johnson is not a world record holder in the 100 meters. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Aug 16, 2018 17:10:40 GMT -8
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. His record is expunged.
He's none of the above.
To my knowledge, his record is "sealed." It is not "expunged." (Please let me know, if you believe that it has been "expunged.") Those two words are different. If his record were "expunged," it would be deleted, as if it never happened. A "sealed" record is not deleted and can be re-opened with a court order. Functionally, a "sealed" record is just as "bad" for LH as an "unsealed" record, except that certain people should be shielded from viewing his complete record. I think that your belabored point would be better, if his record were expunged. However, that is not the case. On top of that, my point is that it largely does not matter, because he has admitted that he was "convicted" of sexually assaulting a child to a national newspaper. That is sort of tough to recover from. |
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Aug 16, 2018 17:30:11 GMT -8
His record is expunged.
He's none of the above.
To my knowledge, his record is "sealed." It is not "expunged." (Please let me know, if you believe that it has been "expunged.") Those two words are different. If his record were "expunged," it would be deleted, as if it never happened. A "sealed" record is not deleted and can be re-opened with a court order. Functionally, a "sealed" record is just as "bad" for LH as an "unsealed" record, except that certain people should be shielded from viewing his complete record. I think that your belabored point would be better, if his record were expunged. However, that is not the case. On top of that, my point is that it largely does not matter, because he has admitted that he was "convicted" of sexually assaulting a child to a national newspaper. That is sort of tough to recover from. Quote from a NYT article on May 7th, 2018 - "Heimlich’s court records were sealed last August, two months after the first news stories broke. That month, five years after the date of his plea, he said, the records were expunged. He no longer has to register as a sex offender".
With all of the facts that both print and electronic media screws up, this might be false as well. But it is in a national publication - unless once again they intend on printing a retraction on page 263 to avoid being called on it. In all fairness, it is LH that is claiming his record was expunged a year ago this month.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Aug 16, 2018 20:17:02 GMT -8
To my knowledge, his record is "sealed." It is not "expunged." (Please let me know, if you believe that it has been "expunged.") Those two words are different. If his record were "expunged," it would be deleted, as if it never happened. It's expunged ... not merely sealed. His thought process on this entire topic is "sealed"! His comments on this subject should be expunged in totality!! Each time he's called on his BS there will be some excuse or "interpretation" that he'll try to cover his tracks. |
|
