|
|
Post by TheGlove on Jun 7, 2018 13:35:27 GMT -8
This is absolutely false. Stop making s%#t up. Ok. Every single out-of-state student not from Alaska that I have ever met that did not have a full scholly or whose parents were not rich was either working to establish residency or had looked into and realized that it would have been too difficult. The exceptions were the Alaskans, who were getting their checks from their state. Period. If you had a different experience, then you had a different experience. Spin cycle on high. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 7, 2018 13:38:43 GMT -8
Ok. Every single out-of-state student not from Alaska that I have ever met that did not have a full scholly or whose parents were not rich was either working to establish residency or had looked into and realized that it would have been too difficult. The exceptions were the Alaskans, who were getting their checks from their state. Period. If you had a different experience, then you had a different experience. Spin cycle on high. Lol! |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Jun 7, 2018 15:55:36 GMT -8
Really. When you go the route of obvious spinning it craters your credibility. At least with me. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 7, 2018 16:21:56 GMT -8
Really. When you go the route of obvious spinning it craters your credibility. At least with me. I've re-read my posts. My initial post was garbage. You were right. I think it would be better to say that Luke wanted to be out of Washington to be out of Washington. He moved to Oregon, thinking that he would live in Oregon but probably move somewhere else after school. However, he failed to realize that, if he were going to remain in Oregon, he would have to register. He failed to do so. But his failure to establish residency in Oregon allowed his lawyer to argue that he was still a Washington resident. I have read that he wanted out of Washington, because it decreased the number of requirements he needed in order to stay on the right side of the law up there. He moved to Oregon, which was a mistake on his part, considering his past. A lot of things conspired against Luke to bring this all to light. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Jun 7, 2018 16:52:04 GMT -8
He did register when he enrolled at OSU, as required.
His lawyer didn't have to "argue" he was a Washington resident. He was.
You are terribly misinformed on this.
And yes, the Oregonian did incorrectly report that he was convicted of a felony. Juveniles cannot be "convicted" of any crimes in Washington, much less a felony. They are "adjudicated," a major difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 7, 2018 17:26:09 GMT -8
He did register when he enrolled at OSU, as required. His lawyer didn't have to "argue" he was a Washington resident. He was. You are terribly misinformed on this. And yes, the Oregonian did incorrectly report that he was convicted of a felony. Juveniles cannot be "convicted" of any crimes in Washington, much less a felony. They are "adjudicated," a major difference. Luke Heimlich was a Washington resident domiciled in Oregon. The only difference between a Washington resident domiciled in Oregon and an Oregon resident is an intent to remain. Luke's attorney asserted that Luke did not have that intent, which is probably true. However, how is an officer supposed to know that. There is a major difference between an adjudicated minor and a convicted felon. Under the laws of the sovereign State of Oregon, Luke Heimlich is a "convicted felon." Oregon and Washington treat juvenile criminals differently. Under the laws of the State of Washington, Luke is an adjudicated minor. However, under the law of the sovereign State of Oregon, Luke was "convicted" of a felony sex crime. If he was not "convicted" of a felony sex crime, under the laws of the State of Oregon, he would never have had to register in the first place. Luke registering with the State of Oregon is an admission that he was indeed "convicted" of a felony sex crime, under the laws of the State of Oregon. To state otherwise is spin. |
|
|
|
Post by beavergeuse on Jun 7, 2018 17:44:39 GMT -8
"Like" for the part about having a case against law enforcement. Booooooo! Yes, let's sue the cops! Genius! They were trying too hard to make sure that sexual predators were complying with Oregon law. And, even though Luke was vindicated, he was playing a game. Even though he was living in Corvallis for the school-year, he was claiming Washington "residence," so he did not have to comply with the reporting requirement. An officer is not going to know that Luke is a Washington "resident" without talking to him. Really, I fault Luke's legal representation. If the police made a mistake, why didn't Luke's lawyer get the police to scrub his record? That was what caused all of this to develop the way that it did. If either of his lawyers had been on-the-ball, he likely is a millionaire, and we are talking about Minnesota. i was talking to someone in the AD office the other day and was told that even though the athlete lives in Corvallis year around the university does not consider them a resident and so the athletic department has to pay the school out of state tuition, |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Jun 7, 2018 18:00:23 GMT -8
The laws of the state of Oregon do not apply in this case. Nor do the laws of Canada, Russia, Poland, California, or whatever state/country you wish to use as a red herring.
WASHINGTON state law, which has standing in this case, considers him an adjudicated juvenile. WASHINGTON state law says he is not a convicted felon. WASHINGTON state law required he register in the appropriate state with the appropriate authorities when he moved. He did.
You really shouldn't argue the law when you clearly know nothing of it in this case.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jun 7, 2018 19:42:10 GMT -8
The laws of the state of Oregon do not apply in this case. Nor do the laws of Canada, Russia, Poland, California, or whatever state/country you wish to use as a red herring. WASHINGTON state law, which has standing in this case, considers him an adjudicated juvenile. WASHINGTON state law says he is not a convicted felon. WASHINGTON state law required he register in the appropriate state with the appropriate authorities when he moved. He did. You really shouldn't argue the law when you clearly know nothing of it in this case. But, he continues to... over and over and over. |
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on Jun 7, 2018 20:46:06 GMT -8
The laws of the state of Oregon do not apply in this case. Nor do the laws of Canada, Russia, Poland, California, or whatever state/country you wish to use as a red herring. WASHINGTON state law, which has standing in this case, considers him an adjudicated juvenile. WASHINGTON state law says he is not a convicted felon. WASHINGTON state law required he register in the appropriate state with the appropriate authorities when he moved. He did. You really shouldn't argue the law when you clearly know nothing of it in this case. Also, would add that Heimlich's lawyer did not use the Washington residency argument after the fact to get the citation lifted. Heimlich and his lawyer knew ahead of time that the registration laws in Oregon did not apply and that the citation was based on false premise. An officer can find what state a person has their legal identification in within a matter of seconds. It is not unreasonable for an officer to perform this task prior to assuming residency. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 8, 2018 12:32:45 GMT -8
The laws of the state of Oregon do not apply in this case. Nor do the laws of Canada, Russia, Poland, California, or whatever state/country you wish to use as a red herring. WASHINGTON state law, which has standing in this case, considers him an adjudicated juvenile. WASHINGTON state law says he is not a convicted felon. WASHINGTON state law required he register in the appropriate state with the appropriate authorities when he moved. He did. You really shouldn't argue the law when you clearly know nothing of it in this case. But, he continues to... over and over and over. @henry Skrimshander Don't tell me that the laws of Oregon do not apply. You are asserting that the Oregonian erred in reporting that he was a "convicted felon." I think that we can agree that Luke was not a "convicted felon" under the laws of the State of Washington. However, he had to register with the State of Oregon, because he was domiciled in Oregon. And the reason that he had to register with the state is because he was a "convicted felon," according to the laws of the sovereign State of Oregon. The reason that he was cited for failing to re-register on his 21st birthday is because he was domiciled in Oregon and had registered as a "convicted felon," according to the laws of the sovereign State of Oregon. The Oregonian reported that Luke Heimlich is a "convicted felon." In order for it to be libel, it must be false. However, Luke admitted that he was a "convicted felon" by registering with the State of Oregon. Therefore, the statement does not appear to be demonstrably false to me, and it cannot be libel. It can be very misleading. You can be upset for the Oregonian using loaded language. However, from my knowledge of the law, what the Oregonian stated is not false, according to the laws of the sovereign State of Oregon. Now, if you can point to something that would make what the Oregonian said false or why Washington law would apply to an Oregon-based paper and a Washington resident domiciled in the State of Oregon, I am all ears. There certainly may be a conflict of laws argument that I do not appreciate. However, I have never seen it expressed. I have represented individuals who have been libeled before. And sued and recovered money from individuals who have committed libel. From my experience, I think that the Oregonian has an airtight case just on the facts. But, on top of that, I could point you to New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). Or I could point you to the fact that, as far as I know, there has been no request for a retraction. Also, baseba11, when your response to my opinions about the law is basically the "I know a guy" defense, I stop listening. No offense. That is my universal response to someone who I disagree with, who pulls out the "I know a guy" defense. Whether that be in the field of the construction and installation of solar panels or libel law. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jun 8, 2018 16:41:13 GMT -8
But, he continues to... over and over and over. @henry Skrimshander Don't tell me that the laws of Oregon do not apply. You are asserting that the Oregonian erred in reporting that he was a "convicted felon." I think that we can agree that Luke was not a "convicted felon" under the laws of the State of Washington. However, he had to register with the State of Oregon, because he was domiciled in Oregon. And the reason that he had to register with the state is because he was a "convicted felon," according to the laws of the sovereign State of Oregon. The reason that he was cited for failing to re-register on his 21st birthday is because he was domiciled in Oregon and had registered as a "convicted felon," according to the laws of the sovereign State of Oregon. The Oregonian reported that Luke Heimlich is a "convicted felon." In order for it to be libel, it must be false. However, Luke admitted that he was a "convicted felon" by registering with the State of Oregon. Therefore, the statement does not appear to be demonstrably false to me, and it cannot be libel. It can be very misleading. You can be upset for the Oregonian using loaded language. However, from my knowledge of the law, what the Oregonian stated is not false, according to the laws of the sovereign State of Oregon. Now, if you can point to something that would make what the Oregonian said false or why Washington law would apply to an Oregon-based paper and a Washington resident domiciled in the State of Oregon, I am all ears. There certainly may be a conflict of laws argument that I do not appreciate. However, I have never seen it expressed. I have represented individuals who have been libeled before. And sued and recovered money from individuals who have committed libel. From my experience, I think that the Oregonian has an airtight case just on the facts. But, on top of that, I could point you to New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). Or I could point you to the fact that, as far as I know, there has been no request for a retraction. Also, baseba11, when your response to my opinions about the law is basically the "I know a guy" defense, I stop listening. No offense. That is my universal response to someone who I disagree with, who pulls out the "I know a guy" defense. Whether that be in the field of the construction and installation of solar panels or libel law. WOW... you are in an out of control spin. For an educated professional your posts on this border on ludicrous. I've not stated anything about "knowing a guy" since very very early in this issue. He... and basically anyone who has done any research has proven you totally off base. AND... WRONG. WRONG IN SO MANY POSTS IT IS BEYOND KEEPING TRACK. You don't argue opinion, you try to spin factual info and the law. You use the words "convicted", "guilty", "evidence" with a irresponsibility of the morons on tigerdroppings not that of a highly educated that has a law degree. A lawyer posted a very specific legal explanation that mirrored my layman's response to you. You still deeper and deeper. Recently you were called out on student residency and there was the rules posted. You still tried to spin out of it as it was an opinion you could change. Unbelievable... "Listening"... Ha. Reading your posts on this topic, and doing so at times in disbelief I just shake my head. My thoughts to you and your continued bias lending to your complete loss of credibility... I hope to gawd your a better trust, will, real estate, whatever lawyer than you are a poster here. I've never seen a competent person faced with so much factual information and still try to spin and "Dr" their posts. Hence, your competence and integrity here is limited strictly to your historical... basically cut and pasted facts. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Jun 8, 2018 17:03:08 GMT -8
"Now, if you can point to something that would make what the Oregonian said false "
In order to be a "convicted felon," you must be convicted of a felony. He was not, not in Washington, or in any other state in the country. Pretty simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 8, 2018 17:07:47 GMT -8
@henry Skrimshander Don't tell me that the laws of Oregon do not apply. You are asserting that the Oregonian erred in reporting that he was a "convicted felon." I think that we can agree that Luke was not a "convicted felon" under the laws of the State of Washington. However, he had to register with the State of Oregon, because he was domiciled in Oregon. And the reason that he had to register with the state is because he was a "convicted felon," according to the laws of the sovereign State of Oregon. The reason that he was cited for failing to re-register on his 21st birthday is because he was domiciled in Oregon and had registered as a "convicted felon," according to the laws of the sovereign State of Oregon. The Oregonian reported that Luke Heimlich is a "convicted felon." In order for it to be libel, it must be false. However, Luke admitted that he was a "convicted felon" by registering with the State of Oregon. Therefore, the statement does not appear to be demonstrably false to me, and it cannot be libel. It can be very misleading. You can be upset for the Oregonian using loaded language. However, from my knowledge of the law, what the Oregonian stated is not false, according to the laws of the sovereign State of Oregon. Now, if you can point to something that would make what the Oregonian said false or why Washington law would apply to an Oregon-based paper and a Washington resident domiciled in the State of Oregon, I am all ears. There certainly may be a conflict of laws argument that I do not appreciate. However, I have never seen it expressed. I have represented individuals who have been libeled before. And sued and recovered money from individuals who have committed libel. From my experience, I think that the Oregonian has an airtight case just on the facts. But, on top of that, I could point you to New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). Or I could point you to the fact that, as far as I know, there has been no request for a retraction. Also, baseba11, when your response to my opinions about the law is basically the "I know a guy" defense, I stop listening. No offense. That is my universal response to someone who I disagree with, who pulls out the "I know a guy" defense. Whether that be in the field of the construction and installation of solar panels or libel law. WOW... you are in an out of control spin. For an educated professional your posts on this border on ludicrous. I've not stated anything about "knowing a guy" since very very early in this issue. He... and basically anyone who has done any research has proven you totally off base. AND... WRONG. WRONG IN SO MANY POSTS IT IS BEYOND KEEPING TRACK. You don't argue opinion, you try to spin factual info and the law. You use the words "convicted", "guilty", "evidence" with a irresponsibility of the morons on tigerdroppings not that of a highly educated that has a law degree. A lawyer posted a very specific legal explanation that mirrored my layman's response to you. You still deeper and deeper. Recently you were called out on student residency and there was the rules posted. You still tried to spin out of it as it was an opinion you could change. Unbelievable... "Listening"... Ha. Reading your posts on this topic, and doing so at times in disbelief I just shake my head. My thoughts to you and your continued bias lending to your complete loss of credibility... I hope to gawd your a better trust, will, real estate, whatever lawyer than you are a poster here. I've never seen a competent person faced with so much factual information and still try to spin and "Dr" their posts. Hence, your competence and integrity here is limited strictly to your historical... basically cut and pasted facts. Ok, to turn this around. This is about libel. State why Washington law would even be pertinent in a libel situation. The locus of the tort does not extend to Washington, so why do you and Henry keep bringing it up? Oregon law would apply in a libel case. There is no conflict of law issue that would make Washington law pertinent, so why do you and Henry keep bringing it up? Luke is "guilty." He has stated that he "pled guilty." He is not afraid of the word "guilty," so why are you? Also, that is an against-party admission (to a newspaper of national circulation, no less), so legally, that is evidence that it is true, whether it is factual or not. If he "pled guilty," which Luke has admitted, both by registering as a sex offender and by stating it to a newspaper of national circulation, that is a de facto "conviction," pursuant to the law of the State of Oregon, which is the only pertinent law in a libel case. Honestly, I am betting that the Oregonian has a copy of Luke's sex offender registration with the State of Oregon, wherein he affirms that he was convicted of what would have been a felony in the State of Oregon. I am betting that the Oregonian is basing their language in Luke's original sex offender registration. However, I do not know that. And I do not have access to it. It is just a hunch. Where did I misuse the term "evidence?" I am not seeing it in the post that you are quoting. You use the word "proven." Where have you "proven" anything? You know a guy. What do you need to "prove?" Hopefully, most people enjoy the facts that I bring up. I find that most of the fun in posting is learning more about the topics. I speak to you and the other posters to learn more, so that I can apply it to other related situations. I speak with other people and bring it onto the board. Baseba11, you have a lot of insight into baseball and football, and I like several of your posts. However, you seem to have firmly come down on the other side of me in this whole Luke fiasco. I think he did it. You disagree. It is too bad. I think that there are better conversations to have about this situation beyond whether he did it or not or whether the Oregonian is technically correct in all aspects of their original article about Luke last year. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 8, 2018 17:11:04 GMT -8
"Now, if you can point to something that would make what the Oregonian said false "
In order to be a "convicted felon," you must be convicted of a felony. He was not, not in Washington, or in any other state in the country. Pretty simple. He admitted that he was a convicted felon by registering as a convicted of what would amount to a felony in the state of Oregon. Oregon is one of the worst places that he could have gone, if he did not want to be called a convicted felon. |
|
