|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 14, 2017 11:50:00 GMT -8
According to the Moran's original article, Scott Barnes and Steve Clark confirmed that Luke Heimlich was a convicted felon. Additionally, that is supported by the statement made by Clatsop County District Attorney, Josh Marquis. Oregon's laws regarding sex offenders appears to have elevated Heimlich's crime to a "felony" under Oregon law, whether or not it was a "felony" under Washington law. I suppose that there is a colorable argument to the contrary but not a very good one, in my opinion. Really, if Heimlich wanted his conduct to remain secret, he should have chosen to go to school in Washington or a state other than Oregon and how Oregon handles underage sex crimes. This is not true, and Scott Barnes and Steve Clark also misspoke. Luke H is not a "felon" to my understanding. In the state of Oregon, ORS 419.400 states juvenile crimes process in juvenile court are not considered "convictions". like the article say resolution of the matter is considered adjudication. If he was processed by a juvenile court, and not tried as an adult, he is not a felon. Period. The state of Washington is very similar in this regard. Now, like you said, Luke could of potentially been tried as an adult for his offense here in Oregon. ORS 137.707 outlines it as likely. It would depend on the exact offense they brought against him, and how it correlates to Oregon's specified crimes. I believe, if I am not mistaken, these were part of the measure 11 overhauls... for better or for worse. But he was not tried in Oregon as an adult, he was processed in Washington as a juvenile. it may be pedantic, but legally he is not a felon. ORS 419.400 does not exist. 419C.400? 419C.400 states that a finding of jurisdiction does not mean that a juvenile is "convicted." That is not the same thing that you are saying. It would appear that, under ORS 137.707(1), because he was 15 at the time, Heimlich would have been prosecuted as an adult for his later offense. ORS 137.707(4)(a)(L)-(P) provides a minimum sentence of no less than 75 months. If he was convicted, when he was 16, he would still be in prison until May of next year, at the earliest. In the laws of the sovereign State of Oregon, whether he was a felon or not in Washington, he is a "convicted felon" in Oregon, as those terms are defined by the laws of the sovereign State of Oregon. If he had remained in Washington, he would have remained an "adjudicated delinquent." He is just on the wrong side of the knife's edge in Oregon. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 14, 2017 11:52:29 GMT -8
bill82 You guys bring up a valid point. If someone could show that it disproportionately applied to one race, the rule could be found to be unconstitutional, because of a violation of the 14th Amendment. Why would it be double jeopardy? Is it double jeopardy that most convicted felons cannot vote? Felony convictions deprive you of certain privileges: the ability to vote, the right to own a gun, etc. Why would playing baseball for a university be any different? He wasn't "convicted" of anything... he is not a felon. BIG difference. He pleaded guilty, which is always a conviction. As explained above, in Oregon, because he pleaded to guilty to the 15-year-old offense, rather than the other offense, he committed a felony. Thus, the Oregonian's use of the term is correct, as Oregon uses them. Had he remained in Washington, the terms would have been inaccurate, as has been pointed out. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 14, 2017 11:58:41 GMT -8
ORS 419.400 does not exist. 419C.400? 419C.400 states that a finding of jurisdiction does not mean that a juvenile is "convicted." That is not the same thing that you are saying. It would appear that, under ORS 137.707(1), because he was 15 at the time, Heimlich would have been prosecuted as an adult for his later offense. ORS 137.707(4)(a)(L)-(P) provides a minimum sentence of no less than 75 months. If he was convicted, when he was 16, he would still be in prison until May of next year, at the earliest. In the laws of the sovereign State of Oregon, whether he was a felon or not in Washington, he is a "convicted felon" in Oregon, as those terms are defined by the laws of the sovereign State of Oregon. If he had remained in Washington, he would have remained an "adjudicated delinquent." He is just on the wrong side of the knife's edge in Oregon. How the hell can he be a "convicted felon" in the eyes of the state of Oregon if he's never been "convicted" of a "felony" in this or any other state?? Pleading guilty is a "conviction," as the term is defined in every state. In Oregon, when it comes to sexual crimes, if it would have been a "felony," if committed in Oregon, it is a "felony," whether it was a "felony" in the state, where the offense occurred. You have to love law. Words mean what they mean until they do not. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jun 14, 2017 12:00:57 GMT -8
The above posts are bogus club house lawyers. My "legal eagle"/licensed in both states, tells me your legal status is whatever jurisdiction the case was handled. Hence, the Oregon reporting law did not apply to Luke nor any of the terms that would apply if the crime occurred in Oregon.
He laughed out loud when I read him the posts that your legal status changed state by state!
It would be impossible to keep track of how convictions/criminals could be handled from state to state.
And... juvenile adjudication is NOT a conviction... no matter the guilty plea. No matter how you want the "definition" to read 🤣
As my friend stated, the "guilty" plea was part of the adjudication plea/deal. Because, you change states you do not change status ir sentence.
LMAO... according to some ood the legal "scholars" on here as soon as Luke entered Oregon be should have served time!
Better yet... get charged in Oregon and after conviction say you want to move to Washington so it's juvenile and get adjudicated!! 🤣
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jun 14, 2017 12:07:18 GMT -8
How the hell can he be a "convicted felon" in the eyes of the state of Oregon if he's never been "convicted" of a "felony" in this or any other state?? Pleading guilty is a "conviction," as the term is defined in every state. In Oregon, when it comes to sexual crimes, if it would have been a "felony," if committed in Oregon, it is a "felony," whether it was a "felony" in the state, where the offense occurred. You have to love law. Words mean what they mean until they do not. "would have been" not "is". If my uncle were female he'd be my aunt. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 14, 2017 12:32:08 GMT -8
The above posts are bogus club house lawyers. My "legal eagle"/licensed in both states, tells me your legal status is whatever jurisdiction the case was handled. Hence, the Oregon reporting law did not apply to Luke nor any of the terms that would apply if the crime occurred in Oregon. He laughed out loud when I read him the posts that your legal status changed state by state! It would be impossible to keep track of how convictions/criminals could be handled from state to state. And... juvenile adjudication is NOT a conviction... no matter the guilty plea. No matter how you want the "definition" to read 🤣 As my friend stated, the "guilty" plea was part of the adjudication plea/deal. Because, you change states you do not change status ir sentence. LMAO... according to some ood the legal "scholars" on here as soon as Luke entered Oregon be should have served time! Better yet... get charged in Oregon and after conviction say you want to move to Washington so it's juvenile and get adjudicated!! 🤣 I am going to need a ciation. ATown had citations, bad citations, but citations, nevertheless. Oregon does not have jurisdiction to punish someone ex post facto for a crime committed without its jurisdiction. However, it has the right to determine what are felonies and what are not, when committed outside of the state. Under Oregon State law, Heimlich committed a "felony" as that term is defined in Oregon. That is why he had to register as a sex offender. His status as a Washington resident meant that he did not have to re-register, when he turned 21, like Oregon resident felons do. I believe that it also means that Heimlich is no longer a convicted felon once he scrubs his conviction in August. I am happy to be proven corrected, if your "legal eagle" has a cite to the contrary. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 14, 2017 12:38:45 GMT -8
Pleading guilty is a "conviction," as the term is defined in every state. In Oregon, when it comes to sexual crimes, if it would have been a "felony," if committed in Oregon, it is a "felony," whether it was a "felony" in the state, where the offense occurred. You have to love law. Words mean what they mean until they do not. "would have been" not "is". If my uncle were female he'd be my aunt. According to Oregon State law, conduct that would have been felonious, if committed in Oregon, is felonious. Oregon treats Heimlich as if he had pleaded guilty to a similar statute in Oregon. The problem is that what Heimlich pleaded guiltyto in Washington is a felony in Oregon with a minimum sentence of 75 months. In Oregon, 15-year-olds who commit sex crimes are also treated as adults. The knife's edge is that, if he had pleaded guilty to the earlier charge, the one that occurred while he was younger than 15, it would not have been a felony in Oregon and he would not have been a convicted felon. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jun 14, 2017 12:51:13 GMT -8
"would have been" not "is". If my uncle were female he'd be my aunt. According to Oregon State law, conduct that would have been felonious, if committed in Oregon, is felonious. Oregon treats Heimlich as if he had pleaded guilty to a similar statute in Oregon. The problem is that what Heimlich pleaded guiltyto in Washington is a felony in Oregon with a minimum sentence of 75 months. In Oregon, 15-year-olds who commit sex crimes are also treated as adults. The knife's edge is that, if he had pleaded guilty to the earlier charge, the one that occurred while he was younger than 15, it would not have been a felony in Oregon and he would not have been a convicted felon. He by no means has to provide you anything. I believe him and he not only is in Family Law, he is quite involved. You're reading definitions and the "basics"... There is more to law than the "words" that is why they have trials and interpretations, appeals, etc. But, why argue with someone who thinks they know more about family law than an actual attorney. It's been cited by several expert sources that it is not a change of jurisdiction that determines Luke's classification and as such the CPD was mistaken to even cite him. If your interpretation was correct they would indeed be in the right. You may as well take the Bar... you seem to think online research is all you need to practice. LOL |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 14, 2017 13:02:10 GMT -8
According to Oregon State law, conduct that would have been felonious, if committed in Oregon, is felonious. Oregon treats Heimlich as if he had pleaded guilty to a similar statute in Oregon. The problem is that what Heimlich pleaded guiltyto in Washington is a felony in Oregon with a minimum sentence of 75 months. In Oregon, 15-year-olds who commit sex crimes are also treated as adults. The knife's edge is that, if he had pleaded guilty to the earlier charge, the one that occurred while he was younger than 15, it would not have been a felony in Oregon and he would not have been a convicted felon. He by no means has to provide you anything. I believe him and he not only is in Family Law, he is quite involved. You're reading definitions and the "basics"... There is more to law than the "words" that is why they have trials and interpretations, appeals, etc. But, why argue with someone who thinks they know more about family law than an actual attorney. It's been cited by several expert sources that it is not a change of jurisdiction that determines Luke's classification and as such the CPD was mistaken to even cite him. If your interpretation was correct they would indeed be in the right. You may as well take the Bar... you seem to think online research is all you need to practice. LOL I have taken the Bar. Just not that one. I know very little about Oregon law, because it is different than all four states around it (in pretty much every way). Not that I am barred in any of the states around Oregon, but I am barred in Arizona, Colorado, and Utah. (I once had a boss, who was arguing a case in front of the Court of Appeals about the interpretation of an indemnity provision, and he was trying to base his entire argument on Oregon's interpretation of the provision in the contract. He asked me to find other support. Unsurprisingly, every state that had decided the issue had declined to follow Oregon's interpretation.) A change in jurisdiction changes Heimlich's classification. It does not, however, make him subject to laws that are reserved to "residents," as he is a Washington "resident." That is why he did not have to re-register, when he turned 21. He is a Washington "resident." However, it did not change the fact that he had to register, when he got to Oregon, because he was a "convicted felon," as those terms are defined in the State of Oregon. |
|
|
|
Post by obf on Jun 14, 2017 13:05:12 GMT -8
To be fair wilkyisdashiznit might be a lawyer IRL as well, we don't know, he certainly has access to the legal code or knows where to find it... and he has proven time and time again that he is very smart... However I have having trouble follow the logic as well... stepping over the state line somehow changed his status? Then he should have also been put in jail when he stepped over the state line... As the title of this thread points out all we can do is wait for "the rest of the story" to come out... IF it ever comes out. I want to hear from OSU / Pat Casey (who knew what when, and is it even appropriate for them to know about juvenile stuff? How will OSU handle future recruits IRT criminal records or whatever) I also want to hear from the Heimlich story. I have said multiple times that I SHOULDN'T get to hear ANY of this story, but now that I know a teeny bit from one side, I really want to know the rest. I have now read way TOO MANY sob stories about juveniles on the public sex offender registry that really shouldn't be, or were coerced into admission, or whose story is so much more nuanced than CHILD MOLESTOR, that I am very curious to hear Luke's story... |
|
|
|
Post by obf on Jun 14, 2017 13:08:52 GMT -8
He by no means has to provide you anything. I believe him and he not only is in Family Law, he is quite involved. You're reading definitions and the "basics"... There is more to law than the "words" that is why they have trials and interpretations, appeals, etc. But, why argue with someone who thinks they know more about family law than an actual attorney. It's been cited by several expert sources that it is not a change of jurisdiction that determines Luke's classification and as such the CPD was mistaken to even cite him. If your interpretation was correct they would indeed be in the right. You may as well take the Bar... you seem to think online research is all you need to practice. LOL I have taken the Bar. Just not that one. I know very little about Oregon law, because it is different than all four states around it (in pretty much every way). Not that I am barred in any of the states around Oregon, but I am barred in Arizona, Colorado, and Utah. (I once had a boss, who was arguing a case in front of the Court of Appeals about the interpretation of an indemnity provision, and he was trying to base his entire argument on Oregon's interpretation of the provision in the contract. He asked me to find other support. Unsurprisingly, every state that had decided the issue had declined to follow Oregon's interpretation.) A change in jurisdiction changes Heimlich's classification. It does not, however, make him subject to laws that are reserved to "residents," as he is a Washington "resident." That is why he did not have to re-register, when he turned 21. He is a Washington "resident." However, it did not change the fact that he had to register, when he got to Oregon, because he was a "convicted felon," as those terms are defined in the State of Oregon. Whelp, there you go, we posted at the same time, but I figured you were a lawyer or had more than just a "googlings" worth of legal knowledge. I am glad to read your insights, still don't follow the logic as far as what the correct term for Luke is, but really the term right is kind of pedantic. |
|
|
|
Post by beaverdude on Jun 14, 2017 13:28:39 GMT -8
Whelp, there you go, we posted at the same time, but I figured you were a lawyer or had more than just a "googlings" worth of legal knowledge. I am glad to read your insights, still don't follow the logic as far as what the correct term for Luke is, but really the term right is kind of pedantic. If you haven't yet read Kerry Eggers article... portlandtribune.com/pt/12-sports/363027-243259-a-look-at-some-issues-involving-luke-heimlich-"In Oregon, a juvenile sex offender from out of state is not required to register again on his 21st birthday. Were Heimlich a resident of Oregon or convicted in Oregon, he would have had to. As a Washington resident attending college in Oregon, that part of the law did not apply to him. When Corvallis police included Heimlich in a sweep of sex offenders who had not registered, they didn't realize he wasn't required to under Oregon law. Heimlich's attorney, Stephen Ensor, took that to the district attorney, who agreed to dismiss the case." The item that caught the eye of the little o should never have been there because the CPD wasn't following the law when he was charged. One other tidbit, on Aug 28th LH can ask to have his juvenile record sealed. There is an end in site, its farther off now thanks to the douche bags at the little o. |
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on Jun 14, 2017 14:26:43 GMT -8
The above posts are bogus club house lawyers. My "legal eagle"/licensed in both states, tells me your legal status is whatever jurisdiction the case was handled. Hence, the Oregon reporting law did not apply to Luke nor any of the terms that would apply if the crime occurred in Oregon. He laughed out loud when I read him the posts that your legal status changed state by state! It would be impossible to keep track of how convictions/criminals could be handled from state to state. And... juvenile adjudication is NOT a conviction... no matter the guilty plea. No matter how you want the "definition" to read 🤣 As my friend stated, the "guilty" plea was part of the adjudication plea/deal. Because, you change states you do not change status ir sentence. LMAO... according to some ood the legal "scholars" on here as soon as Luke entered Oregon be should have served time! Better yet... get charged in Oregon and after conviction say you want to move to Washington so it's juvenile and get adjudicated!! 🤣 I am going to need a ciation. ATown had citations, bad citations, but citations, nevertheless. Oregon does not have jurisdiction to punish someone ex post facto for a crime committed without its jurisdiction. However, it has the right to determine what are felonies and what are not, when committed outside of the state. Under Oregon State law, Heimlich committed a "felony" as that term is defined in Oregon. That is why he had to register as a sex offender. His status as a Washington resident meant that he did not have to re-register, when he turned 21, like Oregon resident felons do. I believe that it also means that Heimlich is no longer a convicted felon once he scrubs his conviction in August. I am happy to be proven corrected, if your "legal eagle" has a cite to the contrary. You did not need a citation to have the common sense to know that the legal history of a person does not change every time they cross a different state line. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jun 14, 2017 16:00:24 GMT -8
So there you have it. Luke has complied with the applicable laws for his juvenile offense - without exception. He is a student in good standing at Oregon State University. He is a player in good standing with OSU Baseball. There is no publicly available reason why he shouldn't be allowed to compete with his teammates in Omaha.
If there is information which contradicts this conclusion I hope it is made public.
|
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jun 14, 2017 17:56:29 GMT -8
The above posts are bogus club house lawyers. My "legal eagle"/licensed in both states, tells me your legal status is whatever jurisdiction the case was handled. Hence, the Oregon reporting law did not apply to Luke nor any of the terms that would apply if the crime occurred in Oregon. He laughed out loud when I read him the posts that your legal status changed state by state! It would be impossible to keep track of how convictions/criminals could be handled from state to state. And... juvenile adjudication is NOT a conviction... no matter the guilty plea. No matter how you want the "definition" to read 🤣 As my friend stated, the "guilty" plea was part of the adjudication plea/deal. Because, you change states you do not change status ir sentence. LMAO... according to some ood the legal "scholars" on here as soon as Luke entered Oregon be should have served time! Better yet... get charged in Oregon and after conviction say you want to move to Washington so it's juvenile and get adjudicated!! 🤣 Oh yeah? Well my lawyer can beat up your lawyer! |
|
