|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Feb 16, 2018 14:58:53 GMT -8
So Luke was "wronged" because his admitted sexual contact with a child was called a felony instead of a juvenile offense. Because he was labeled as "convicted" instead of "adjudicated." Is this what we're arguing right now? Actually, yes. Because in a court of law, distinctions matter. That's why we don't call those who are judged to have killed someone in self-defense, or through accidents, murderers, even though someone died. Sorry if such minor distinctions don't matter to you. |
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Feb 16, 2018 14:58:55 GMT -8
Let us know the next time you are falsely accused and hosed for millions of dollars. Screw CBS and the mainstream media. It is amazing to me the lack of understanding and logic some people exhibit. What part of JUVENILE offender do you not understand? What part of no felony, no permanent mark on his record, do you not understand? He was not required to disclose or report in the State of Oregon - that has been proven. So the Corvallis PD/ Benton County screwed up, and started this whole mess - and the Portlandian ran with it - as click bait. And now, it doesn't even appear on his record - it has been expunged. Basically, it is if it never happened. Get real. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Feb 16, 2018 15:01:43 GMT -8
So Luke was "wronged" because his admitted sexual contact with a child was called a felony instead of a juvenile offense. Because he was labeled as "convicted" instead of "adjudicated." Is this what we're arguing right now? I think we are arguing, based on Kerry Eggers article, that he admitted sexual contact with a child in a juvenile court under a pressured plea deal, that the family regrets they took. LH and family were lead to believe they had no other reasonable choice and the risk of fighting the charges were greater than the risks of the plea deal. A deal that specified, under law, that a "admission of guilt" is not a conviction of a crime, not a conviction of a felony, but rather an adjudication of a juvenile, and that after completion of requirements, his record would be sealed then expunged. Sure beats a year in jail, which he was facing. WE are arguing that a mother, whom had lost custody of her children, made the accusation and no other family member confirmed, saw or even suspected anything had happened. Despite 7 years passing, this mother still remains unable to have custody of her daughter. We are arguing that LH may have admitted guilt... but an admission of guilt, particularly in our legal landscape is not proof that any event happened. He was required to admit guilt to take a plea bargain that a lawyer recommend that he take. So we are arguing, that in the face of these facts, the free and loose use of the term like sex offender, felon, convicted felon, and other words are misplaced and misleading. These words carry meaning, have connotation and consequences that do not apply to LH in any way, shape or form. It may seem like pedantic details to some. but it matters. and as of last August, they are doubly incorrect. Even if everything is true, and really did happen, that record is officially expunged and there is no criminal record on LH history whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Feb 16, 2018 15:07:48 GMT -8
Regardless of what the charge was, how it is referred to, how the Oregonian found it out and reported it, how the school responded, etc.....it comes down to this really: Do you personally think he sexually molested his niece? If your answer to that question is "well he probably did SOMETHING to her" and you're arguing that he has been wronged by society somehow.....I just don't know how you reconcile that. I do not. not even a little bit. I believe a crazy ass ex-wife to his brother accused him of molesting her daughter as a scheme to get custody of her kid back. that is what I believe. LH is a kid that has been nothing but a role model from day one. from the minute he stepped on this campus he gets good grades, he doesn't party, he keeps his head down. He is active with charity and religious... None of that means it is not possible that he did it. of course not. But it weighs more in his favor that he didn't. There is a stunning lack of any evidence other than he said/she said, and from what I can tell it is this enigmatic ex-wife that doesn't have custody of her daughter doing all the saying. |
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Feb 16, 2018 15:10:18 GMT -8
So Luke was "wronged" because his admitted sexual contact with a child was called a felony instead of a juvenile offense. Because he was labeled as "convicted" instead of "adjudicated." Is this what we're arguing right now? I think we are arguing, based on Kerry Eggers article, that he admitted sexual contact with a child in a juvenile court under a pressured plea deal, that the family regrets they took. LH and family were lead to believe they had no other reasonable choice and the risk of fighting the charges were greater than the risks of the plea deal. A deal that specified, under law, that a "admission of guilt" is not a conviction of a crime, not a conviction of a felony, but rather an adjudication of a juvenile, and that after completion of requirements, his record would be sealed then expunged. Sure beats a year in jail, which he was facing. WE are arguing that a mother, whom had lost custody of her children, made the accusation and no other family member confirmed, saw or even suspected anything had happened. Despite 7 years passing, this mother still remains unable to have custody of her daughter. We are arguing that LH may have admitted guilt... but an admission of guilt, particularly in our legal landscape is not proof that any event happened. He was required to admit guilt to take a plea bargain that a lawyer recommend that he take. So we are arguing, that in the face of these facts, the free and loose use of the term like sex offender, felon, convicted felon, and other words are misplaced and misleading. These words carry meaning, have connotation and consequences that do not apply to LH in any way, shape or form. It may seem like pedantic details to some. but it matters. and as of last August, they are doubly incorrect. Even if everything is true, and really did happen, that record is officially expunged and there is no criminal record on LH history whatsoever. Amen, bro. +1000% |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 16, 2018 15:13:24 GMT -8
So Luke was "wronged" because his admitted sexual contact with a child was called a felony instead of a juvenile offense. Because he was labeled as "convicted" instead of "adjudicated." Is this what we're arguing right now? I think we are arguing, based on Kerry Eggers article, that he admitted sexual contact with a child in a juvenile court under a pressured plea deal, that the family regrets they took. LH and family were lead to believe they had no other reasonable choice and the risk of fighting the charges were greater than the risks of the plea deal. A deal that specified, under law, that a "admission of guilt" is not a conviction of a crime, not a conviction of a felony, but rather an adjudication of a juvenile, and that after completion of requirements, his record would be sealed then expunged. Sure beats a year in jail, which he was facing. WE are arguing that a mother, whom had lost custody of her children, made the accusation and no other family member confirmed, saw or even suspected anything had happened. Despite 7 years passing, this mother still remains unable to have custody of her daughter. We are arguing that LH may have admitted guilt... but an admission of guilt, particularly in our legal landscape is not proof that any event happened. He was required to admit guilt to take a plea bargain that a lawyer recommend that he take. So we are arguing, that in the face of these facts, the free and loose use of the term like sex offender, felon, convicted felon, and other words are misplaced and misleading. These words carry meaning, have connotation and consequences that do not apply to LH in any way, shape or form. It may seem like pedantic details to some. but it matters. and as of last August, they are doubly incorrect. Even if everything is true, and really did happen, that record is officially expunged and there is no criminal record on LH history whatsoever. You are mis-stating the facts of the case. As the Tribune piece makes quite clear, the father of the girl who was molested, Josh Heimlich, Luke's older brother, made the accusation that Luke sexually molested his daughter and called the cops. Josh Heimlich is still of the opinion that his brother molested his daughter. Josh Heimlich's ex-wife is also of the same opinion. The girl and her family all believe that Luke Heimlich molested her. An admission of guilt is legally proof that an event happened. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 16, 2018 15:42:03 GMT -8
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. Admitting guilt is a "conviction" under the laws of the State of Oregon, if you were over the age of 15, when you committed a "sex crime." Heimlich pled to the juvenile version of molestation in Washington (what would be a class A felony in Washington, if Heimlich were an adult). The analog in Oregon would be first degree unlawful sexual penetration, a class A felony. That crime carries with it a mandatory sentencing of at least 8 years and 4 months without the possibility of probation or parole. The maximum sentence for unlawful sexual penetration is 20 years and $375,000.00. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 16, 2018 15:56:18 GMT -8
An admission of guilt is legally proof that an event happened. Maybe as far as how the legal system chooses to characterize it. Nowhere else.
I responded.
From the facts of the case, it appears that a little girl told her parents that her uncle placed a portion of himself inside of her. She told him to stop, but he did not. Both parents believed the girl. The father, Josh Heimlich, Luke's older brother called the police on Luke. Luke's lawyer, facing a little girl's testimony, as well as probable testimony from Luke's own brother, advised a plea deal. That is very reasonable advice in a vacuum. Where I think that the lawyer messed up is the deal that she made. I think that the lawyer probably could have got Luke a better deal, especially in relation to how it played out later. However, Luke signed off on the deal and admitted guilt.
I am personally of the opinion that Luke probably did something pretty awful to that poor little girl, his niece, a girl nine years his junior. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 16, 2018 15:59:19 GMT -8
The analog in Oregon would be first degree unlawful sexual penetration, a class A felony. That crime carries with it a mandatory sentencing of at least 8 years and 4 months without the possibility of probation or parole. The maximum sentence for unlawful sexual penetration is 20 years and $375,000.00. No, it wouldn't be. What would the analog be, then? |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 16, 2018 16:01:09 GMT -8
I think we are arguing, based on Kerry Eggers article, that he admitted sexual contact with a child in a juvenile court under a pressured plea deal, that the family regrets they took. LH and family were lead to believe they had no other reasonable choice and the risk of fighting the charges were greater than the risks of the plea deal. A deal that specified, under law, that a "admission of guilt" is not a conviction of a crime, not a conviction of a felony, but rather an adjudication of a juvenile, and that after completion of requirements, his record would be sealed then expunged. Sure beats a year in jail, which he was facing. WE are arguing that a mother, whom had lost custody of her children, made the accusation and no other family member confirmed, saw or even suspected anything had happened. Despite 7 years passing, this mother still remains unable to have custody of her daughter. We are arguing that LH may have admitted guilt... but an admission of guilt, particularly in our legal landscape is not proof that any event happened. He was required to admit guilt to take a plea bargain that a lawyer recommend that he take. So we are arguing, that in the face of these facts, the free and loose use of the term like sex offender, felon, convicted felon, and other words are misplaced and misleading. These words carry meaning, have connotation and consequences that do not apply to LH in any way, shape or form. It may seem like pedantic details to some. but it matters. and as of last August, they are doubly incorrect. Even if everything is true, and really did happen, that record is officially expunged and there is no criminal record on LH history whatsoever. You are mis-stating the facts of the case. As the Tribune piece makes quite clear, the father of the girl who was molested, Josh Heimlich, Luke's older brother, made the accusation that Luke sexually molested his daughter and called the cops. Josh Heimlich is still of the opinion that his brother molested his daughter. Josh Heimlich's ex-wife is also of the same opinion. The girl and her family all believe that Luke Heimlich molested her. An admission of guilt is legally proof that an event happened. Obviously you have some "dog in this fight" you do not want to share. Which is fine, but the majority of your posts are personal opinion and vitriol. And, now that you state you've been an attorney for a dozen years makes most of those posts strange indeed. To "top" it off, in an earlier post you toss out a "legality" that does not apply. In fact I called my buddy and read him your post and the ORS you cited. I also added that you are normally quite level headed on this site. His first response... "don't hire him as your attorney... maybe he's in real estate or estate law". The follow up... was similar to my thoughts, you have had a personal experience that drives you to keep making posts that completely contradict your persona previous to the LH episode. If true... I'm sorry. You also may want to review how all this came to light and look over HB2320, effective 8/12/15. To others on here who keep wanting to perpetuate false news... plain making up BS and even worse putting words into others posts. Very few, if any posters came down on "sides"... it did or didn't happen. The issue at one time, was never if or what happened, but how it was handled and came to light, thus hurting the victim, the family, and Luke more than the damage done. The "did he or din't he" only arose as the false "newsies" kept getting holes punched in their "facts". The Benton county officials, Oregonian, and many others were plain wrong in not understanding or taking the time to understand the law and the specific situation. That was the initial scope of the discussions here. Long story short... you can't undo the past... the only thing is the "present", the here and now... LH has done everything in his power to follow thru on what the court system asked... he has no criminal record... no one interprets that as nothing happened or all is ok for those involved. BUT... NONE of you are involved! Yet some think you know more or stand on a superior level of morality. Guess what you don't. And your bias and unsubstantiated posts show exactly that. I hope that those here so full of themselves and their superior opinions don't have kids. Cuz in today's world they'll falter... some as badly as LH may have... some worse. They'll need better parents than many on here have shown as posters. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Feb 16, 2018 16:04:08 GMT -8
I think we are arguing, based on Kerry Eggers article, that he admitted sexual contact with a child in a juvenile court under a pressured plea deal, that the family regrets they took. LH and family were lead to believe they had no other reasonable choice and the risk of fighting the charges were greater than the risks of the plea deal. A deal that specified, under law, that a "admission of guilt" is not a conviction of a crime, not a conviction of a felony, but rather an adjudication of a juvenile, and that after completion of requirements, his record would be sealed then expunged. Sure beats a year in jail, which he was facing. WE are arguing that a mother, whom had lost custody of her children, made the accusation and no other family member confirmed, saw or even suspected anything had happened. Despite 7 years passing, this mother still remains unable to have custody of her daughter. We are arguing that LH may have admitted guilt... but an admission of guilt, particularly in our legal landscape is not proof that any event happened. He was required to admit guilt to take a plea bargain that a lawyer recommend that he take. So we are arguing, that in the face of these facts, the free and loose use of the term like sex offender, felon, convicted felon, and other words are misplaced and misleading. These words carry meaning, have connotation and consequences that do not apply to LH in any way, shape or form. It may seem like pedantic details to some. but it matters. and as of last August, they are doubly incorrect. Even if everything is true, and really did happen, that record is officially expunged and there is no criminal record on LH history whatsoever. You are mis-stating the facts of the case. As the Tribune piece makes quite clear, the father of the girl who was molested, Josh Heimlich, Luke's older brother, made the accusation that Luke sexually molested his daughter and called the cops. Josh Heimlich is still of the opinion that his brother molested his daughter. Josh Heimlich's ex-wife is also of the same opinion. The girl and her family all believe that Luke Heimlich molested her. An admission of guilt is legally proof that an event happened. She made the accusation, He call the cops eventually: • Luke has five nephews and nieces, including two by his oldest brother, Josh. Josh was married for a few years to his ex-wife, who has moved out of state. Soon after their divorce, Josh was granted custody of their two children. The mother had visitation rights that allowed her to have the children with her over Christmas holidays and for a portion of the summer. It was during the summer of 2012 that she brought up the allegations of abuse to Josh after a discussion with their daughter.
Josh spoke with his father, who then had several talks with Luke. During each of the conversations, Luke denied the allegations.
From about 2010 to 2012, and after Josh's divorce, Meridee would watch his children at her home after school while he was at work. She would have them for an hour each morning before they'd go to school. She would pick up the kids from school and bring them home in the afternoon, and Josh would retrieve them after he got off work. During that time is when the alleged incidents involving Luke occurred. Meridee was with the kids virtually the entire time and witnessed nothing involving the kids and Luke. During a large portion of that period, Luke participated on football, basketball and baseball teams that practiced during that time frame, so he was not often at home when Josh's kids were there. Josh eventually went to the police about the matter. After interviews with the ex-wife and her daughter, two charges of abuse were levied against Luke .and some more from the article: • The parents retained an attorney on Luke's behalf. Luke continued to maintain his innocence. In May 2012, Luke's sexual history was obtained via clinical interview and a sexual history polygraph conducted by Rick Minnich, chief examiner of Minnich Polygraph Services of Burien, Washington. Minnich was prohibited from asking any question directly related to Luke's niece. From the report: "It was the opinion of Mr. Minnich that Luke was truthful when he answered 'no' to the following questions: 'Not to include (the niece), have you engaged in sexual conduct with any member of your family?' And, 'Not to include (the niece), have you engaged in sexual contact with anyone else more than two years younger than you?'" As to your last comment. Yes, legal proof in the eyes of the court. I am not a religious man, but I will say it is not proof in the eyes of God. That is what I am saying. You say you are an attorney, I cannot believe you cannot understand that some people that believe they are innocent take a plea deal as a path of least resistance. that notion is not that ludicrous of an idea. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Feb 16, 2018 16:11:15 GMT -8
I think we are arguing, based on Kerry Eggers article, that he admitted sexual contact with a child in a juvenile court under a pressured plea deal, that the family regrets they took. LH and family were lead to believe they had no other reasonable choice and the risk of fighting the charges were greater than the risks of the plea deal. A deal that specified, under law, that a "admission of guilt" is not a conviction of a crime, not a conviction of a felony, but rather an adjudication of a juvenile, and that after completion of requirements, his record would be sealed then expunged. Sure beats a year in jail, which he was facing. WE are arguing that a mother, whom had lost custody of her children, made the accusation and no other family member confirmed, saw or even suspected anything had happened. Despite 7 years passing, this mother still remains unable to have custody of her daughter. We are arguing that LH may have admitted guilt... but an admission of guilt, particularly in our legal landscape is not proof that any event happened. He was required to admit guilt to take a plea bargain that a lawyer recommend that he take. So we are arguing, that in the face of these facts, the free and loose use of the term like sex offender, felon, convicted felon, and other words are misplaced and misleading. These words carry meaning, have connotation and consequences that do not apply to LH in any way, shape or form. It may seem like pedantic details to some. but it matters. and as of last August, they are doubly incorrect. Even if everything is true, and really did happen, that record is officially expunged and there is no criminal record on LH history whatsoever. You are mis-stating the facts of the case. As the Tribune piece makes quite clear, the father of the girl who was molested, Josh Heimlich, Luke's older brother, made the accusation that Luke sexually molested his daughter and called the cops. Josh Heimlich is still of the opinion that his brother molested his daughter. Josh Heimlich's ex-wife is also of the same opinion. The girl and her family all believe that Luke Heimlich molested her. An admission of guilt is legally proof that an event happened. Not sure where you are getting your "facts." You don't have access to the case files, so it must be the Eggers article. You've misunderstood some of what was written. - the brother's ex-wife made the accusations. "The charge, brought forth by the ex-wife of Heimlich's brother and mother of his niece" direct quote from the article. - Josh Heimlich is still of the opinion that his brother molested his daughter. Source? Put yourself in Josh Heimlich's shoes for a moment. He did what he had to do to keep custody. He threw his brother under the bus. Furthermore, "An admission of guilt is legally proof that an event happened."...ever hear of a plea bargain? Just because someone pleads guilty, that may mean in there is legal proof of an event, but it doesn't mean that event actually occurred. |
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Feb 16, 2018 16:16:48 GMT -8
Luke's statement last June:
That seems wholly at odds with the Eggers piece, and this is why I have a hard time believing that this was all made up by his former aunt. This seems to be a second time, completely separate from the original admission of guilt, that he his publicly stating that he made some poor choices as a teenager. If nothing untoward ever happened, why is he leading his statement with "I have taken responsibility for my conduct when I was a teenager?"
Having never been accused of anything in a court of law, I don't know how exactly this works. If there are dozens of cases of people being locked up on the word of a six year old and ONLY the word of a six year old, please let me know. However, I would hope that more evidence than a six year old's word is needed to place a minor in the custody of the state for nine months, separate a child from his parents and bar grandparents access to their granddaughter. The court may favor the victim's testimony, but I think (at least I hope) they don't rely ENTIRELY on that testimony for a conviction.
Again, I'll state my point that I think that from the time he was accused until now, Luke has done everything correctly, and that I think he should be allowed to go to college and play baseball. I also think that Oregon State, the MLB, and any other potential employers have the right to take the story into consideration and decide if they would like that person representing their organization. Oregon State decided they were fine with, MLB teams were not as cool with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Feb 16, 2018 16:17:08 GMT -8
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. Admitting guilt is a "conviction" under the laws of the State of Oregon, if you were over the age of 15, when you committed a "sex crime." Heimlich pled to the juvenile version of molestation in Washington (what would be a class A felony in Washington, if Heimlich were an adult). The analog in Oregon would be first degree unlawful sexual penetration, a class A felony. That crime carries with it a mandatory sentencing of at least 8 years and 4 months without the possibility of probation or parole. The maximum sentence for unlawful sexual penetration is 20 years and $375,000.00. State of Oregon laws are not in play here. Luke was not an adult. Stop obfuscating with details that have zero relevance. |
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Feb 16, 2018 16:37:10 GMT -8
Merits of the discussion aside, time I think to move this thread over to the non-sports side
|
|
