Luke Heimlich through the eyes of a Washington attorney

2015 ORS 163A.005(6)(c)(1):

A "sex offender" means a person who has been convicted in another United States court of a crime that would constitute a sex crime if committed in this state.

Martin Meyer gives a good rundown of the law of the State of Washington. 

However, according to the laws of the sovereign State of Oregon, Luke Heimlich is (or, at least at the time of the original "Oregonian" article, was) a "sex offender" as that term is defined in the State of Oregon, because he was "convicted" as that term is defined in the State of Oregon, of a "sex crime," as that term is defined in the State of Oregon.  The "sex crime" that Luke Heimlich admitted to is a "felony conviction," as that term is defined in the State of Oregon, which makes (or, at least at the time of the article, made) Heimlich a "convicted felon" as that term is defined in the State of Oregon.

Love it or hate it, Florida and Oregon annually vie for the harshest laws related to underage juveniles, who commit crimes (or at least who commit crimes, if they committed them as adults).  A person with Heimlich's background should never have signed up to play in the State of Oregon. It was almost literally asking for what occurred.

If you ignore the laws of the State of Oregon and focus on the laws of the State of Washington, I 100% agree with Mr. Meyer, but Mr. Meyer fails to incorporate the laws of the State of Oregon into his article.

Legal words have legal meaning but those meanings can change, depending upon location.

Your reading skills seem to abandon you when this topic assesses... again and again...

OR law cited never applied... for the last time... HE WAS NEVER CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME. READ...

I have been an attorney for 12 years now.  I get where Mr. Meyer is coming from, but I get the impression that he is not very well versed in Oregon law (or is just not taking it into consideration).

You are going to have to explain your logic, because the central argument of the letter is that LH was NOT convicted of a felony. your statement is that BECAUSE he was convicted of a felony in Washington, he is a sex offender in Oregon. 

"it was wrong and misleading for the Oregonian to use the words “criminal” and “felony” and similar terms when referring to Mr. Heimlich’s juvenile offender proceeding. Under Washington law, and as applicable to Heimlich’s case, juveniles are NOT considered criminals nor are they convicted of crimes. Rather, they are adjudicated of having committed offenses which would constitute a crime if committed by an adult. RCW 13.40.020 (21) specifically defines “Offense” and RCW 13.40.070 references a county prosecuting attorney’s authority to screen complaints as “offenses.” In such cases, offenders are not referred to as a “defendant” in relevant pleadings but are named as a “respondent.” See RCW 13.40.020(25)." 

and further in the letter:

"Indeed, the DOE’s specific best-practice guidance to college applicants reads: “If you have been adjudicated as a juvenile delinquent or have youthful offender status, you should respond to the felony question [on your college application] by checking ‘no.’” (U. S. Department of Education, “Beyond the Box,” Washington, DC, 2016, p. 23). Thus, if Heimlich was asked on his college entrance application whether or not he had ever been convicted of a crime, his answer “NO” would have been completely lawful and truthful."

The case is stated, and correctly I think, that LH is not, nor ever was, "a convicted felon". for the statue you are referencing to apply he must be convicted in another state. and as the letter is making abundantly clear, he never was. 

wow. how would of thought you would show up and be too f%#*ing stupid to understand the argument? will wonders never cease?

I do not begin to presume to speak for LH or his family.  And if he needed to take action last year when the article was written to be able to sue at a later time, then it is a moot point.  I believe that when bad people do dishonest, bad things, even if it costs us in time and money, we have a moral obligation to take action.  Otherwise, who will be next?  When will the BS stop?
Regarding a lawsuit, it is my prediction a good prosecutor could successfully take on the Oregonian, and I bet some would take it pro bono if they really understood how this kid and his family were hosed.  Meanwhile, Crapzano and Moron were able to have their fake moral outrage, and make money off of the story and the family, while damaging LH and his family - and indirectly, the university.  And no, I will not be disappointed when they do nothing.  I rather kind of expect it.  Plenty of people in this world are more than happy to be kicked in the groin, so to speak, and not respond.  Their choice, not mine.