Yep! It all gets better for everyone except me who was criminalized for not looking like Betty Crocker. http://judiciary.zoomshare.com. After I’m dead from living in your g-d damn concentration camps, it will finally get better!
Yep! It all gets better while I witness rights others are entitled to in an effort to make me jealous!
I was profiled as a lesbian, convicted as a stalker/sex offender, lost custody of my two sons, and sent to prison. That was 25 years ago. Today, I am living in a trailer without utilities, isolated, in a "concentration camp" in Klamath Falls, Oregon, USA while awaiting a hearing at the U.N. If you don't believe me, check out http://judiciary.zoomshare.com
On February 8, 2012, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued the following 11 opinions:
1) Civil Procedure: A trial court abuses its discretion in dismissing an amended complaint in an attorney negligence claim where the plaintiff attempts to amend the complaint to allege that but for the defendant's negligence, the outcome in the underlying case would have been different.
2) Civil Procedure: A court may not enter a judgment awarding more damages than the plaintiff sought in its complaint, unless the party against whom the judgment will be entered had reasonable notice and an
opportunity to be heard.
3) Criminal Law: Where an action is a material fact to proving whether defendant committed a crime, the court shall give the jury a "Boots instruction." That is, at minimum 10 jurors must concur that a defendant intended to commit the crime, and that he intended to commit a material fact to that crime.
4) Criminal Procedure: To determine whether the affidavit in support of a search warrant is sufficient, the state applies the reasoning of State v. Castilleja. That is, the court’s function is limited in scope to determining whether a magistrate could have reasonably concluded the facts in an affidavit established probable cause for a search
warrant.
5) Evidence: Under ORS 654.086, OR-OSHA has the burden of persuasion to show constructive knowledge. Employer evidence to show “reasonable diligence” in compliance is not an affirmative defense “because it negates the knowledge element of a serious violation.”
6) Tort Law: The 180-day time limit for filing a claim under the Oregon Tort Claims Act begins when the plaintiff knows, or with reasonable care should know that an injury has occurred and that it is possible for a jury to agree with the plaintiff's argument under the circumstances of the case.
10) Workers Compensation: If the Court of Appeals cannot determine from records of the Workers' Compensation Board whether it found that a claimant proved the existence of an occupational disease, not just symptoms, then the Court may remand the case so that the board may address that point.
On February 2, 2012, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued the following
3 opinions:
1) Criminal Law: Under State v. Magel, the test for cases involving a
threat takes into account whether the defendant expressed an intent to
harm the victim, and whether that expression could compel the victim
to engage in sexual contact.
2) Evidence: It is plain error for a trial court to admit a medical
expert's diagnosis of sexual abuse in the absence of physical findings
to support the diagnosis; inferences, for purposes of the plain error
analysis, must be plausible.
3) Evidence: A witness may not give testimony, expert or otherwise, as
to the credibility of whether he or she believes another witness is
telling the truth.
Blah Blah Blah, Blah Blah Blah, Blah Blah Blah, Blah Blah Blah, Blah Blah Blah, Blah Blah Blah, Blah Blah Blah, Blah Blah Blah, Blah Blah Blah, Blah Blah Blah, Blah Blah Blah, Blah Blah
