correct e-mail address may result in revocation or restriction of e-mail filing privileges.
All filings, including case initiating documents, may be submitted as PDF attachments to an
e-mail addressed to [email protected]. Documents e-mailed to other court email addresses will not be accepted for filing and will receive no response.
correct e-mail address may result in revocation or restriction of e-mail filing privileges.
• The filing must be signed with s/ [filer's name] or bear a scanned handwritten signature.
• The e-mail must contain the party's name, address, and phone number.
Number]. For new cases, the e-mail's subject line must state: Pro Se Filing in New Case.
Court will request a revision that complies with this Order.
Oregon 2020-8 Amended in Re Pro Se Filing by E-Mail in Response to COVID-19 https://t.co/k6txaugqPG
— braingarbage (@braingarbage) December 5, 2020
More from braingarbage
its a great chance to study the history of public beatings.
understandably, women feel threatened. https://t.co/jck05JGM4B
#PDX #tourism
@MultCoDA https://t.co/GgR1rCGIdG @OregonStateBar @BrentWeisberg @USAO_OR
— braingarbage (@braingarbage) November 28, 2020
Even if this is a "joke" or a drunk tweet, it appears that he is inciting gender-based violence on a woman via Twitter@twittersupport pic.twitter.com/TcaBiQ2wvU
FIRST OREGON WIFE-BEATER TO RECEIVE WHIPPING POST PUNISHMENT
https://t.co/3SJOODbuLf
PORTLAND. Or., June 7—The whipping post law passed at the last session of the Legislature was Into execution for the first time today, the victim being Charles Mcdlnty, convicted of wlfe-beatlng
whip was a braided blacksnake, made of rawhide, with four lashes. ..hustled to jail, stripped to the
waist, manacled, and his hands tied to the door high above his head. The whipping was as severe as the powerful deputy was capable of administering. Blood drawn on the 4th blow.
A171609.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
July 8, 2020.
https://t.co/qB3G8IAtxS we must correctly interpret the statute.
Stull v. Hoke, 326 Or. 72, 77, 948 P.2d 722 (1997).
legal change of sex from male or female to nonbinary
Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Hadlock, Judge pro tempore.
https://t.co/oJuecwvEKc
J. Gibbons https://t.co/TieeoF2bZd
— braingarbage (@braingarbage) December 5, 2020
Bruce L. Campbell, John C. Clarke, and Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP filed the brief amicus curiae for Transgender Law Center, interACT, and Beyond Binary Legal.
Does ORS 33.460 permit the circuit court to grant a legal change of sex from male or female to nonbinary? The circuit court concluded that the statute does not permit such a change, and it denied petitioner's application under ORS 33.460
More from Court
Spoiler: it makes uncomfortable reading for the Attorney General.
There will be no substantive change to the sentences passed on the killers of Pc Andrew Harper.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 16, 2020
The Attorney General\u2019s application to refer the sentences as unduly lenient and the defence applications for leave to appeal against sentence have been refused by the Court of Appeal. https://t.co/qxTzuj7jR3
First, by way of background. I was one of several commentators astonished that the Attorney General, who has no known experience of practising criminal law, decided to personally present this serious case at the Court of Appeal.
It appeared an overtly political decision.
Grimly cynical.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) November 12, 2020
The Attorney General - who has absolutely no experience of criminal law - is so desperate to exploit this tragic case that she is inserting herself into proceedings that she is not competent to conduct.https://t.co/QWdINvUwwf
Comments leaked to the press confirmed this was a political decision, to capitalise on a tragic case in the headlines.
A “friend” of the Attorney General told the Express that she was pursuing the case *against* legal advice. She also took a preemptive pop at the judges.
Before the hearing, the Attorney General leaked to the Daily Express, via an alleged \u201cfriend\u201d, her views that, should the judges find against her, it will be because they are \u201cwet liberal judges\u201d who are \u201csoft on criminals\u201d. https://t.co/5uGggN8tTT
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) November 30, 2020
On the day of the hearing, it appeared from selected reports that the AG was out of her depth. She appeared to be making political submissions to the Court of Appeal that have no place in a case of this type.
The Attorney General had to be embarrassingly corrected during the hearing by an actual criminal silk after making irrelevant and politicised submissions to the Court of Appeal.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) November 30, 2020
What a farce. pic.twitter.com/wy81xoFIDI
The Court of Appeal judgment helps understand what happened.
The AG played a limited role. She “rehearsed some of the facts and said that the sentences had caused widespread public concern”
Her contribution was seemingly not considered by the Court to be legal submissions. Oof.