Hopefully it will be printed either online or next week in the print version, but this was my letter to the editor in response to the 2nd published story in the Portland Tribune's "broken medical marijuana system" series. I have comments about the first one too, but I'll address them out of order and note my comments on this latest:
-----------------
Like most of the commenters to the online version, I found the use of the headline "Legal pot causing overdoses" in your story on synthetic THC an extremely odd choice that is easily misunderstood at best, bluntly manipulated at worst. Their further (accurate) complaints over the choice to publish it within a series on the "broken medical marijuana system" deserve a response: what does the sale of spiked incense have to do with medical marijuana?
Both the headline and the series reference have since been changed, with 'pot' now in quotes. Kudos for taking reader feedback to heart, but I think it's fair to ask how it happened in the first place. And it’s disappointing that a story that actually deserves attention was encapsulated with such a misleading tag.
If there WERE, theoretically, an intent to cast indirect aspersions on the cannabis legalization initiative now pending in Oregon, that would be doubly unfortunate--because legal cannabis would almost certainly preclude the market for synthetic THC. Your article cites K2 users saying they want the same high, but legally. Pot is really a reverse gateway drug, drawing kids away from something that might really be harmful that you can OD on--whereas the next fatal overdose from pot will be the first.With recent studies showing a majority of Western US adults favoring outright legalization, maybe it’s time to take a good, serious look finally.
It's not been a good week for those who are trying to build opposition to the tax fairness bills passed in the Leg last year and now referred to January's ballot. In two separate rulings at both the lowest and highest levels of Oregon's court system, teabagging plaintiffs who had sued for a change in the ballot titles were dealt strong rebukes--all but ensuring that the original (or even improved) titles will remain intact.
Our friends at Yes For Oregon have the details on both. First, their statement on last week's OR Supremes ruling {google doc}, which not only rejected plaintiffs' arguments about the titles, but to my mind actually improved them in a way that is not only more accurate but a boon for M66/67 proponents:
In short, the Court ruled today that the opponents challenge was without merit. The core of the argument made by the opponents -- -- Oregonians against job killing taxes -- -- was that voters should be made aware that the revenue from measures 66 and 67 will be spent to protect education, healthcare, and public safety.
The Court rejected that argument for both measures, changing only the phrase "maintains funds currently budgeted for education, healthcare, public safety, other services" to "provides funds currently budgeted for education, healthcare, public safety, other services."
The court also ordered a modification in the "Result of a No" statement on both measures. "Reduces funding currently budgeted for education, healthcare, public safety, other services by estimated $472 million" is now "leaves amount currently budgeted for education healthcare, public safety, other services underfunded by estimated $472 million."
The Vote Yes for Oregon coalition agrees that this language is a more clear and accurate way of describing to voters what's at stake in January. [emph orig]
As it appears the coalition believes, the change from "reduces funding" to "leaves underfunded" is not only closer to the real truth of the matter, it better highlights the consequence--UNDERFUNDING. Reducing funding is one thing, and can sound like a prudent savings, but nobody should think leaving something "underfunded" is a good thing. To put it another way, would you like your caloric intake reduced, or would you prefer to take in fewer calories than you need?
And yesterday, a circuit court judge in Marion County refused to place an injunction on the ballot title process, essentially clearing the decks for moving forward on the matter. In the aftermath the coalition's Scott Moore had some snark to throw down:
"The corporate lobbyists had spent weeks misrepresenting the ballot titles in the process, and the courts have now thrown out all of their arguments" says Scott Moore, spokesperson for the Vote Yes for Oregon Coalition. "It's too bad there isn't a process that also allows the Supreme Court to throw out their committee name -- -- Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes -- -- for misrepresenting the impact of the measures."
Moore has a valid point of course, but it's hard to avoid the sense that they're gloating a little bit over the epic fail of the plaintiffs. That's usually how these kinds of things go when one side really doesn't have much of a leg to stand on, but throws whatever it can at the wall anyway. So I don't blame 'em for letting a little giddiness slip.
Feeling legalo-wonky? The two OSC decisions are readable in their entirety here {pdf}, and also here {pdf}(there were two rulings, one for each Measure.) The Marion County decision can be found in this Google Doc.
A federal judge sentenced two Medford men to prison today for burning the letters KKK and the shape of a cross on the lawn of a mixed-race Medford couple in 2008.
A neighbor put out the fire with a garden hose before the house ignited. Both pleaded guilty in February and said they wanted the couple and their two small children to move, a violation of federal housing laws.
As the article notes, they had already received their convictions and were just awaiting a sentence. The wrinkle on that front is that the guilty pair were originally charged in Jackson County, until the federal courts got interested. The local DA's office agreed to drop the charges, confident that the feds could have at least as much luck nailing them on civil rights claims of home invasion and conspiracy to commit a hate crime, instead of arson, reckless endangerment and criminal mischief.
I guess it was a good call, because Racist Dipshit #1, 37-year old Gary Moss, got 41 months while his partner Racist Dipshit #2 (aka Devan Klausegger, 30) had an additional 10 months tacked on. Apparently if you spread accelerant all over a wooden cross in someone's yard, it's a little less hateful than if you're the one to light it ablaze.
There's a recurring debate about the concept of hate crimes, with opponents suggesting that a crime's a crime, and we shouldn't be muddying the waters trying to divine someone's thought process.
That perspective ignores our long legal tradition of using extenuating circumstances to shape the terms of charge and punishment. A crime of passion might get you less time than one with malice aforethought, for instance--doesn't that seem logical? It's rational and smart to consider the circumstances of a crime.
If you don't think so, be honest with yourself when answering this question: were these idiots intending to commit an arson and make some mischief--or were they deliberately venting their hate and bigotry on a specific target of their ire? The pair admitted they wanted the couple and their kids to leave town. And the state should charge them with being silly firebugs? I don't think so.
So kudos to Judge Aiken, and a shout-out to the couple's neighbor who showed reassuring humanism by dousing the fire for them. And I hope the cellblock for Moss and Klausegger is simply FESTOONED with minority offenders!
Tre Arrow says on his Web site that he is due to be released Monday from a federal prison in California to serve the remaining six months of his term at a halfway house in Portland.
The 35-year-old environmental activist was sentenced last year to 78 months in prison after pleading guilty to setting fire to cement and logging trucks in the Portland area in 2001.
But Arrow was given credit for about four years of time served in jails awaiting extradition from Canada to Oregon after his arrest in British Columbia in 2004.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons lists his release date as Dec. 4 from the Herlong medium security prison near Susanville, Calif.
An agency spokeswoman says the bureau does not confirm whether an inmate was sent to a halfway house until after the inmate arrives.
It will be interesting to see whether and when Mr. Arrow (nee Michael Scarpitti) will hew to the straight and narrow, whether he will eventually resume his environmental advocacy--and whether anyone beyond his shrunken core of followers will listen. Until the arsons, he was a creative and effective spokesperson for aggressive action. The energy is still needed, at least.
Fresh off a pretty busy calendar of events on Atorrney General John Kroger's docket last week, this week the People's Advocate is back on the trail for Oregon, suing the Oppenheimer Funds for $36 million he and Treasurer Ben Westlund say were negiligently lost for the state's 529 Oregon College Savings Plan. The reaction from Oppenheimer hasn't been positive of course, but it's sparked a mini-war of press releases in the last couple of days:
Oregon officials allege that Oppenheimer invested program participants' money in risky securities rather than in a conservative portfolio.
"We intend to use the full legal power of the state of Oregon to make sure Oregon families' dreams of a college education are fulfilled," Kroger said in a statement at the time.
Oppenheimer responded to the lawsuit in a statement, saying it was "very disappointed" that Kroger and Westlund sued, especially since the company has cooperated with the state's investigation into losses to the program.
"OFI is deeply concerned with the investigative process followed by Oregon and its decision to file a suit at this time. While OFI would have preferred reasonable, good-faith discussion and resolution, it is prepared to defend itself and its reputation vigorously against these claims, which lack legal merit," the statement said.
One could suppose that the AG's Office might have responded in any case, but generally I think the tendency is to let the defendants have their say in the media, and focus on getting the win in court. But apparently Kroger and Westlund could not let stand the fudgery that makes up Oppenheimer's "we're the victims" line; they responded within hours:
"In truth, lawyers representing Oregon discussed the case on numerous occasions by telephone and in person with counsel for OppenheimerFunds," their joint statement said.
"Oregon repeatedly indicated that it would like to resolve the case amicably. Unfortunately, OppenheimerFunds did not take this case seriously, even after being advised that a lawsuit would be filed if OppenheimerFunds was not prepared to discuss a serious settlement."
Whoops! Perhaps what they meant by "reasonable good faith resolution" was that Kroger and Westlund would admit it was really all for show, agree to work out some kind of easy-to-swallow settlement that allows Oppenheimer to avoid admitting culpability, and drag it out so that everyone eventually forgets what it was all about."
Our new sheriffs don't seem particularly predisposed to that kind of response, however. Good for them. I can't speak to the specific legal merits, but I have to think that they wouldn't attempt to file a suit if it were as simple as poor investment decisions that didn't pan out. So assuming there was some kind of prior agreement as to the general makeup of the portfolio, OFI will have to argue that the securities they purchased on behalf of the Savings Plan were conservative investments that just went bad. We'll see.
I quite like the legislative effort here, and it stands to confirm my pleasure with new Attorney General John Kroger, who will get a chance to continue making good on promises to act on behalf of Oregon consumers--the target this time being unscrupulous and harrassing debt collectors, who of course are legion these days:
The legislation will allow Attorney General John Kroger, beginning in January, to sue overzealous debt collectors who harass Oregonians by making middle-of-the-night collections calls or for engaging in verbal abuse, for instance.
"This important legislation will help us crack down on debt collectors who routinely violate state and federal law," Kroger said in a statement Thursday.
Senate Bill 328 specifically will allow the state's attorney general to go to court to enforce a 1977 law against illegal collection practices, the Unlawful Debt Collection Practices Act.
Currently, the attorney general can only sue collection agencies under Oregon's Unlawful Trade Protection Act. The Department of Consumer and Business Services licenses debt-collection agencies and regulates third-party debt collection.
I really don't think most Americans grasp the concept that consumer protection is not a worldwide, automatic phenomenon. Corrupt and impotent governments alike give companies free reign to sell impure products (Mexican pharmaceuticals anyone?), poisoned products (anyone buying Chinese cat food?) and unsafe products (two words: Ford Pinto).
The libertarian point of view has some benefits, but a key failing of the philosophy for me is that it divides human effort unnecessarily, dismissive of the economy of scale. Taxation is a good thing because it allows large numbers of people to contribute small amounts to achieve big goals.
Ceding authority but not oversight allows a bigger, more powerful agent to control behavior we want controlled. Maybe there's debate over what to control, but we can agree that even people in debt have the right to be free from trickery or harrassment, can't we? And admitting that there are some consensus items means admitting there IS reason for state-level authority.
That's what bothered me about Jeff Merkley's crusade against payday lenders. Nobody wants usury, which is what those places were doing before the Legislature wisely passed an interest cap and other reforms. But once that was done--once a reasonable level of profit and accountability was agreed on--it should have been OK for those places to continue doing business. So why was Merkley celebrating their shutdown? Didn't he agree that what they were doing was legal, in part by his own vote?
Obviously we can't ban bill collectors, or prevent them from using the phone to collect. But we CAN make sure they're doing it legitimately and professionally. Kudos to the Leg and the AG for getting this done when so much else is out there to tackle.
Oregon is suing Swiss Bank UBS AG for the losses of the Oregon Public Employees' Retirement Fund.
Oregon State Treasurer Ben Westlund and Attorney General John Kroger announced Wednesday that the state is seeking to recover more than $25 million from Swiss Bank, which is headquartered in Zurich.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in New York, seeks to make Oregon a co-lead plaintiff in an existing securities fraud class action case against the world's largest private bank. The motion was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, by the Oregon Department of Justice on behalf of the state of Oregon, the office of the State Treasurer and the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund.
In February, the bank admitted its role in the tax evasion scheme and agreed to pay $780 million to settle charges.
I'd say that given the fact that the bank has already admitted it's guilty, the job of recovering funds will be somewhat easier. On the other hand, Lord knows how many other depositors are now scrambling to get what's left of the pie. But every little bit helps. No word on whether they would try to settle by paying us back in chocolate, watches or really hot blond chicks in pigtails and lederhosen.
In a ruling released without comment or dissent, the US Supreme Court today finally dispensed with the question of whether Oregon jurors were within their purview to award $79.5 million in punitive damages to the widow of a longtime Oregon smoker:
The high court dismissed the Philip Morris appeal without issuing an opinion, ending the third appeal the company had secured before the Supreme Court in its fight to reign in an award by an Oregon jury.
The Supreme Court's dismissal also means no new legal precedent was set on punitive damages, a development that is likely to disappoint business groups that have continued to press for additional punitive damages guidance from the high court.
The dismissal came in a short court order that offered no details on why the appeal was dismissed. No justices dissented from the dismissal.
Philip Morris, in a statement, said legal proceedings will continue in Oregon on distribution of the financial damages. Oregon law requires that 60% of the award go to the state - leaving the plaintiff with 40% - and the tobacco company said it believes the nationwide tobacco settlement bars Oregon from receiving any more tobacco money.
This was a long, drawn out case. (Aren't they all?) Jesse Williams, a janitor from Portland, began smoking in 1950 and was diagnosed in 1996, dying just a year later. By 1999, an Oregon jury had awarded $821,000 in actual damages (medical care, etc.), but 97 times that in punitive damages. According to court records, part of the jury's intent was to hold Phillip Morris liable for the harm it had caused other Oregon smokers as well.
PM didn't like that, and argued that it violated their 14th Amendment rights of due process, since the punitive award was so disproportionate to actual damages--and PM was punished for perceived injuries to people not specifically party to the case.
The Oregon Supreme Court upheld the verdict, but in 2003 the federal version deemed punitive awards more than 10x the actual damages to be excessive. The verdict was remanded back to Oregon twice for consideration of the new damages limit, but our courts declined--according to WSJ, on the grounds that Phillip Morris forfeited their right to challenge the verdict by not properly following state jury instruction rules.
So once again the case came before the federales, and this time it appears the thinking on damage awards has come full circle--let the states decide, or at least in this case, accept that the state's handling of the case had not been untoward.
Williams' widow Mayola, who in this fine piece by the Guardian UK is credited heavily with the victory through her testimony and persistence against the tobacco giant, will reportedly see $58 million, her share of the now-$145 million judgement with interest. The remainder will go to Oregon's crime victims fund--something that has to put a little hop into AG Kroger's step this afternoon, as with any advocate of state-based, jury-led determinations of corporate liability, or victims' rights. As the Guardian piece suggests, they're probably a bit baffled at the turnaround--especially without dissent or further guidance on liability caps--but definitely delighted.
We're all watching the slo-mo pershing of the giants and half-lings of the print media era, as newspaper brands fall off one by one for want of profitability or a buyer. There are a lot of lives affected, as in many industries around the country, but on a systemic basis I'm not shedding many tears for the franchise print media that exists in most cities. Their various outlets may have individual merit and seem innocuous under the nameplates people have grown accustomed to, but in many ways they are the media equivalent of Taco Bell or Best Buy for their communities--grafted and ingratiated into the citizenry, rather than grown from within it.
The truth is that the major papers will survive in one form or another, having shfited their content online and cut a wide swath of live bodies out of their delivery infrastructure. Will you be out of luck if you don't have a ready interent portal? Very likely. Will free news stop being free? Maybe, unless the big shift to online news makes advertising more viable. Or you'll get bare stories and pay for what's after the continue.
Where the wreckage will be more complete is in smaller markets, of which Portland is probably at the top end of "smaller." If the Oregonian fails, will news continue? Surely. Will it smell as musty as the old money and influence that dank up The Oregonian's pages? Probably not. For better or worse the now-not-just-weekly Willamette Week (and their .com, which has half the news but is 10x easier to navigate than OregonLive) has scooped The O when the latter was caught napping on its generous laurels.
Willy Week is just the tip of the iceberg, though. There's the Mercury, which is mostly for laughs but whose online component produces pretty sharp journalism; KBOO, an outlet that could use a wattage boost and a little funding stream; Street Roots, and the various blogs that cover the City and City Council. In Salem, the passive acceptance of the dance between legislator and reporter might be due a shakeup with new, less beholden players.
Whew! All of which was to say that you needn't pick up a daily paper to find strong reporting, including highly technical investigative journalism. Josh Marshall at TalkingPoints is writing the book on a sustainable model, Dave Niewert writes from Washington on racism and extremism, David Sirota is breaking into the established print media but publishes most of his best work at OpenLeft, et al.
And one of those et al is Marcy Wheeler, better known as emptywheel of FireDogLake. Her coverage along with site founder Jane Hamsher and others of the Valerie Plame case was so good the trad-med was forced to admit she was a godsend for info during the trial. Marcy has been working like a scrivener following the surveillance scandal of the Bush adminsitration, right on through the Presidential transition. The most watched case right now is the al-Haramain case, involving a charity that was originally founded in southern Oregon. But there's a lot more to it than that...we think.
Wanted to speak up and tell why you think Bill Sizemore is a scandalous liar and criminal? Have you been itching to call Loren Parks a dirty old pervert? Or maybe you're coming from another perspective, and you'd like to flay Sam Adams for being a sodomite communist? (Why should Ben Cannon get all the love? There's got to be a contest somewhere for Hottest Sodomite Communist, right?)
But maybe you were afraid to find your voice and call em like you see's em. "What if I'm hunted down like a dog by Friends of Sam?" you might be thinking. Well, can't help you there; perhaps it's wise not to fuck with the President of Pride Week after all. If you're thinking you might get caught up in a legal tangle for calling someone out on LO (or any blog in Oregon, it appears), you can rest easy:
A judge in Clackamas County ruled that an Oregon law that allows newspapers to shield the identity of news sources also protects anonymous writers who post comments to media Web sites. The Web sites could not be compelled to identify the writers, Circuit Judge pro tem James Redman ruled and, under federal law, were not responsible for the comments.
In other words, Beard found out, you can say almost anything about anybody on an Oregon media Web site without fear of being unmasked by a lawsuit or prosecuted for libel, defamation or invasion of privacy.
The Oregon decision, regarding comments posted on Web sites operated by the Portland Mercury, Willamette Week and Bikeportland, was one of the first in the nation to expand news media protections to people who post anonymous comments on the Internet.
A Montana judge issued a similar ruling in September, saying that people who post anonymous comments to newspaper Web sites are akin to confidential sources. An Illinois newspaper is using the state shield law to fight a subpoena from the state attorney general, who wants the identities of some readers who commented anonymously about a murder investigation.
At LoadedO your comments aren't strictly speaking anonymous; they're pseudonymous and confidential. One of the ethics I bind LO to is that we will never reveal personal information about the commenter unless a reasonable allegation of a crime has been made by authorities. Even then, I'd probably be pissy about it.
So go ahead! Call Kulongoski a cheese-dick! Tell us that Vance Day has already been arrested for indecent activity in Portland's new Loo! Or here's an idea: libel ME! (Not here though; you're not anonymous to me, remember?) I won't like it, but what the hell can I do? It's legal!
When the most recent contempt ruling against Bill Sizemore was announced and Bill actually went to jail for 36 hours or so, perhaps the most interesting part of Judge Judy (!!) Janice Wilson's ruling was "Appendix A," a four-page catalog of what Wilson called Sizemore's "deceits"--false statements on documents and in testimony under oath among them, it appeared. What both former Sizemore employee Becky Miller and I both wondered was, "When is Sizemore going to have his blatant lies catch up with him?"
Am I psychotic? Is it wrong to think that when a judge writes "oh by the way, you are a compulsive liar who has repeatedly written bullshit down on your declaration forms and given bullshit answers under oath," that someone might well consider whether a crime has been committed? Don't they call that perjury? It's a five year beef if you do it under federal purview, which some of the tax documents Wilson accuses of making false statements on, would appear to be.
But there are other statements apparently made in Oregon civil courts pursuant to his long legal battle against the state's labor coalition, and those should be locally prosecutable. Since the ruling was handed down in Multnomah County, the Multnomah County District Attorney (MCDA) would be the natural choice. So shortly after the ruling was made public, I started trying to ascertain who knew about, and was interested in investigating, what a Multnomah County judge was accusing him of in a civil proceeding.
Subtitle: HA! Found it in preview mode on my other computer. Heh...cough.
I am by no means a business blogger, much less a journalist in that area. But this is a pretty easy story to grasp, one repeated ad nauseum in the history of the corporate era: company with good idea spawns competitors, which original company seeks to squash or buy out, just the threat of which can distort the market and adversely affect the consumer--but big dollars are at stake, so everyone shuts their eyes.
Except in this case folks are actually speaking up, including a former strategic planner for the former Wild Oats grocery chain, a high-end health emphasis grocer with strong Northwest connections. Recent Portland resident Gary de Bay had the lawsuit he filed in May finally reach the radar in a story by Nick Budnick at the Portland Trib. And in the "maybe" basket it might have stayed, perhaps were it not for the really crappy summer the Whole Foods chain of Texas has had, and in fact the whole year subsequent to their purchase and swallowing of excess Oats. The other stuff in a bit, but first the lawsuit.
Like I said, no business analyst me, so assess for yourself:
“If I were the lawyer for the FTC, interviewing (De Bay) as a potential witness would be high on my to-do list,” said Richard Pierce Jr., an antitrust professor at the George Washington Law School who has been monitoring the Wild Oats-Whole Foods merger case. “This lawsuit and whatever this guy might have to say in an FTC hearing could make the antitrust problems worse for Whole Foods and Wild Oats.”
While De Bay’s allegations have the potential to make national news, they have special relevance to Portland, a key market for Whole Foods and Wild Oats.
In fact, the Whole Foods takeover of Wild Oats was intended to prevent “nasty price wars in Portland” and in several other cities between the competing chains, according to a widely publicized e-mail written by Whole Foods CEO John Mackey that has become a supporting exhibit for the FTC’s allegations of anti-competitive behavior.
Since the merger, Whole Foods reportedly has closed 12 Wild Oats stores, including two in Portland, and sold 35 others.
It would be rudely hypocritical of me to propound the democratic glories of citizen activism--and then turn on someone just because the mainsteam media label him a gadfly. Heaven knows I sympathize with a lot of gadflys, who are really smart people trying to keep a government on their toes. Heck, I may even qualify myself now that I've been tossed out on my ear by the Lake Oswego Council.
There's usually a reason you get the gadfly tag, which implies either a core frivolousness or tediousness, or both. Amanda Fritz is a good example of a citizen activist who often was a thorn in the side of City Council and the planning boards she's sat on--but she had always done her homework and did not try to bully anyone or lie about her opponents to gain the upper hand.
Art Bullock, who refuses to comment to the local media and allegedly goes by this alias, has a bevy of lawsuits pending against the city of Ashland, a tourist destination, which rests in the foothills of the Siskiyou Mountains, and is home to the renowned Oregon Shakespeare Festival.
Bullock, who county officials said registered to vote the same day he filed his campaign papers Wednesday, says he is running for mayor because the city government here is "run by insiders aggressively pursuing their personal agendas and money interests."
Ashland is where "insiders get the power (and) taxpayers get the bill," Bullock said in a statement announcing his candidacy.
While supporters say Bullock is an astute City Hall watchdog, his many critics say Bullock is a gadfly whose aim is to stymie economic development in the idyllic town of about 20,000 people by filing frivolous complaints.
Rizo, who covers a number of states' legal beats for LNL, should be no stranger to Bullock and his history with the city of Ashland. Before this gig he was a reporter for the Daily Tidings in town, which seems to have its own history with Bullock, which we'll get into some below.
{plus a kind of funny "vampire"-like video moment between Bullock and the paper, below!}
Well, a bunch of stuff sure happened in the last 48 hours or so, all at once and beyond the presidential primary news-let's see if we can't sort it out:
Probably the biggest story is the ruling by Judge Paul Lipscomb against State Senator Larry George, thus giving the blessing to a special session next month. Lipscomb had a rather jaundiced eye towards the Legislature, however, for announcing an "emergency" session so far in advance. Were it not for the fact that the Democrats had kept it an intention rather than a formal declaration until very recently, appears to have saved them:
Judge Paul Lipscomb sided with George in that the legislation setting up a special session a year in advance violated the constitution's order for biennial sessions. But he said lawmakers can call themselves back in whenever they see an emergency -- and that's what Senate President Peter Courtney and House Speaker Jeff Merkley did in a letter dated Jan. 18.
The letter, sent in ballot form to members, noted interim committees "have identified specific budget and policy issues that need resolution without delay." A majority of members in each chamber must vote yes by Thursday for the session to start as scheduled on Monday.
Lipscomb wrote: "This brief additional justification for an emergency session, while couched in only very vague and general terms, is nevertheless, sufficient to meet the basic threshold requirements of ... the Oregon Constitution, at least in the judgment of this court."
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
Tre Arrow says on his Web site that he is due to be released Monday from a federal prison in California to serve the remaining six months of his term at a halfway house in Portland. 
