The Oregonian / OregonLive published these two articles:
“Oregon Innocence Project misses mark in notorious murder (OPINION),” by John Foote, March 29, 2016, Clackamas County District Attorney. (Internet Archive copy.)
“Why Oregon Innocence Project has raised questions about notorious murder case (OPINION),” by Steve Wax, April 5, 2016, Legal Director of Oregon Innocence Project, a program of Oregon Justice Resource Center. (Internet Archive copy.)
The Prime Minister of Iceland is most likely only the first “casualty” in the Panama Papers whistleblowing (or leak) and investigative reporting saga.
Read The Guardian article: “Why the Panama Papers should be a US election issue,” by Trevor Timm, 4/5/16.
Tracking “Panama-Gate“: Whether it’s Ponzi, Watergate, S&L Crisis, Iran-Contra, Madoff, the Big Short (see whole Michael Lewis oeuvre), and other 1% scandals too numerous to mention (including our recent Bank of Oswegao scandal), we now have The Panama Papers, brought to us this time by Mossack Fonseca, one of the thousands of law firms and companies that provide similar services.
From the Law Librarian Blog (2): SCOTUS Style Manual Available for Purchase
Excerpt: “In Supreme Court’s Style Manual is Private No More, Tony Mauro reports that the US Supreme Court Style Guide, 2013 ed. can be purchased through Amazon without Court approval because a court aficionado named Jack Metzler is making it available for sale under his own imprint. Metzler reportedly photocopied the 200+ page long manual in the Supreme Court’s law library….” [Link to full LLB2 blog post.]
Citing law back to Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834), “Fastcase maintains that public law cannot be copyrighted ….” [Quoted from Ambrogi, Feb. 6, 2016, article.]
Wheaton v. Peters (read the case at Justia, via Wikipedia, or search the case name for other caselaw sources, e.g. Google Scholar or Cornell LII)
Track Fastcase v. Casemaker news developments at Law Sites Blog and other legal news sources:
OREGON’S FINAL PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY LIST RELEASED BY SECRETARY ATKINS
“Voters have until April 26th to decide to participate in a major party primary.” [Link to Secretary of State’s media release.]
When you need legal research advice, turn to the legal research experts, professional law librarians, most of whom are able to share their expertise freely, or low-costly (so to speak), which is good value indeed when you need accurate, timely, and comprehensive information.
Great law librarians keep up with the vast world of legal research resources: dozens, hundreds, and even thousands of journals and websites and lawyer and law librarian listserves, networks, and professional associations (e.g. AALL). A Law Librarian’s Continuing Education also includes reading local, state, and national judicial, legislative, and regulatory news, and related news in the foreign and international legal world.
So, make sure the librarian you consult for legal research advice is Keeping Up With the Legal Research Joneses or, more to the point, Keeping Up With Opposing Counsel, whose access to legal research resources might be funded a whole lot better than yours:
You need to do a little research if you want to sound as if you know what you are talking about, or, as a comedian (more than once) said:
“The lesson of that first day in kindergarten was re-taught to me throughout my life: If you think you’re pretty smart, you’re not talking to enough people.” Cameron, Bruce, “The Smartest Guy in an Empty Room,” Funny Times, September 2013, p. 3.
Onward to the All Writs Act:
Publicly published official documents from the 2015-16 Oregon State Bar (OSB) Discipline System Review can be found at the OSB website and via internet searches. You can also search for news stories about the Review using these words and limiting your search to the past year (unless you want previous years’ reports): Discipline System Review Committee Oregon State Bar
Currently, you can read the OSB documents from their publicly posted Discipline System Review Committee PDF.
While there are many excellent legal self-help initiatives, there are few studies that evaluate those self-help programs after the fact, i.e. after the self-represented litigant has used the software or the court forms and system (e.g. in small claims court) to resolve a problem or right a wrong.
But the surveys that do exist can be helpful to others. See, for example, this report, which you can find at the SRLN Stories page – and here is the direct link:
