Published on:

By

I blogged about this some time ago, but maybe, maybe, …. See 6/25/08, Willamette Week Murmurs story:

‘Get me rewrite: Since Oregon’s founders wrote the state Constitution in 1857, much has changed. For instance, Article II, section 9, which disqualifies from public office “every person who shall give, or accept a challenge to fight a duel,” might need tweaking (Randy Leonard might be an exception). Thus this Monday, June 30, a House committee will hold a 10 am hearing in Salem on whether to hold an Oregon Constitutional Convention. Among those testifying: Bureau of Labor and Industries Commish Brad Avakian, who twice introduced bills when he was a lawmaker aimed at updating the state’s most important document. Now, he says Reps. Mitch Greenlick (D-Portland) and Chuck Riley (D-Hillsboro) will try to advance that effort. “It’s a tough political sell,” says Avakian. “But it’s time.”’ (link)

If you want to know more about this hearing:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Most headline news stories would benefit from better analysis (not to mention better research) than they are generally given by journalists in 500-1,000 (or even 5,000) word articles and sex offender registration stories are at the top of that list.

For another “view of the cathedral”, (with apologies to Guido Calabresi) on this difficult subject, see f/k/a, who has been blogging thoughtfully on this subject for quite a while now.

Published on:

By

A peacock moved into my and my neighbors’ adjoining yards (in Mt. Tabor) a couple of weeks ago and I’ve been wracking my brain trying to come up with a legal research or law library angle on the situation.

(The fact that neighbor kids have named it Bismarck doesn’t help, except for the laugh factor. You know, that crested helmet thing, though how they got to Bismarck I’m not entirely sure, except for the perils of high school history textbooks nowadays. It also doesn’t help that peacocks are incredibly beautiful and fascinating to watch – especially the way they watch US from their high perches, fences, trees, etc. Do we really want him to go away?)

But, I have said I can find a legal research / law library angle to just about anything in life, so here goes:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In less than 3 weeks, about 2,000 law librarians (including the law lib bloggers) and their families will be converging on the Portland Metro area for the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL). This is a lot more exciting than you might imagine (and very good for local businesses and the tourism sector).

In honor of the Descent of the Law Librarians, Jenn Dalglish, Clackamas County Law Librarian, and I, Washington County Law Librarian, will talk about all things Law Librarian (a lot more fun than you might imagine!) on the public, cable-access TV program:

“Legally Speaking,” on TVCTV, June 26th, 8-9 p.m. (live) (reruns thereafter):49 minutes of Fast Talking about Law Libraries, With Call-In Possibilities.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

I have been writing directions to the Green Dragon from downtown for about 40+ law librarian bloggers who will be showing up in Portland in mid-July. (Uber Portland law professor blogger Jack Bogdanski will be our guest speaker – yeah! – and local bloggers are welcome to join us if they can take the heat of being surrounded by all those super smart, super geeky, but very cool law librarians 🙂

The bus directions are easy, but what about walking across the Morrison Bridge, in this city of pedestrians?

Now I’m a serious walker (but not much of a hiker – go figure), and it occurred to me that I had never walked across the Morrison Bridge. Now I know why. See this fabulous blog post on “How to walk the Morrison Bridge and not die, probably.”

Continue reading →
By
Posted in: Other
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

The U.S. Supreme Court in Indiana v. Edwards (07-208), decided June 19th, 2008:

“Held: The Constitution does not forbid States from insisting upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial but who suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves. Pp. 4–13.

(a) This Court’s precedents frame the question presented, but they do not answer it. Dusky v. United States, 362 U. S. 402, and Drope v. Missouri, 420 U. S. 162, 171, set forth the Constitution’s “mental competence” standard forbidding the trial of an individual lacking a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings and sufficient ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. But those cases did not consider the issue presented here, namely, the relation of that “mental competence” standard to the self-representation right. Similarly the Court’s foundational “self-representation” case, Faretta, supra—which held that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments include a “constitutional right to proceed without counsel when” a criminal defendant “voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so,” 422 U. S., at 807—does not answer the question as to the scope of the self-representation right. Finally … 866 N. E. 2d 252, vacated and remanded. BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and ALITO, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined.” (read in full)

Published on:

By

Revised post: Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and Legislative Counsel Copyright Dispute

Everybody loves a summary, so start here, at BoleyBlogs. Then …

I’m relatively new to Oregon so was wondering what happens next, i.e. after the motion was passed on 6/19/08 by the Legislative Counsel Committee that disclaims any copyright claim or action to enforce it. My questions were:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

… or, When Beating Your Traffic Ticket isn’t Possible in Oregon:

(Previous OLR Blog post about Beating Your Traffic Ticket.

Locals know which town and city Traffic Courts are not open to a conversation about whether or not a traffic law was violated or whether or not there was police or prosecutorial misconduct.

Continue reading →
Contact Information
The information provided on the Oregon Legal Research website and blog is for research purposes only. We do not provide legal advice, nor do we endorse any person, product, or company

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2025, Oregon Legal Research
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design