What if we were to treat court captions on pleadings
OREGON CIRCUIT COURT
The progression runs from the larger polity of the state circuit court, to the venue county (rather like a zip code) and then to the particular court staff which processes special kinds of matters.
Gone would be extraneous prepositions: in, of, of, for; two useless articles — the, the (a somewhat tautologous recitation); "State of’ (what else would Oregon be?); and two comfort words — department of.
If "mail" so addressed reached its proper destination, i.e., the clerk’s proper file, we could rest assured that the clerk would provide the appropriate judge with the appropriate file at the appropriate time.
And what becomes of those familiar 32 keystrokes?
They will never be missed.
Richard F. Lancefield
New ORAP 4.60(2) requires a petitioner challenging a
Land Use Board of Appeals decision to have constitutional
standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals:
(2) The petitioner shall establish in the petition for judicial review, by reference to the record of the local proceeding before LUBA or by petitioner’s affidavit accompanying the petition, that the petitioner has constitutional standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. The petitioner also shall state in the petition the basis of the of the petitioner’s statutory standing.
N 1 to ORAP 4.60(2) cites two Oregon Court of Appeals cases that state the petitioner must show that the LUBA decision will have an adverse practical effect on petitioner’s interest, i.e., higher taxes, reduced livability and property values.
However, if one petitioner has constitutional standing, it is immaterial that a co-petitioner independently does not have standing. Just v. City of Lebanon, 193 Or App 132.135. n 2, 883 P3d 312 (2004) review allowed, 337 Or 247 (2004) held:
* * * Because the trust has standing in this court and the trust and city make similar arguments, it is immaterial whether the city independently has standing and we do not consider the issue. * * *
See also Morseman v. City of Madras, 196 Or App 67,73 n 2, 100 P3d 761 (2004).
A petitioner without initial standing might encourage a person with standing to become a petitioner.
Opting Out of 3L?
[Re: "Canceling the Debt," July 2005:] Perhaps
a partial solution to the high student debt load is to
eliminate the third year of law school or make it optional
Donald C. Ashmanskas
I understand from a recent press article that the OSB
has banned the United States military from advertising in
the Bulletin. The basis for this decision is apparently
that the bar finds (the military’s) position on homosexuality
Please kindly stop sending me copies of the bar Bulletin. I find the bar’s position on homosexuality and our proud military offensive.
Erick J. Haynie
Support Our Troops
Embarrassment should be the reaction of OSB members.
Their Board of Governors voted to ban Oregon National Guard
ads in the bar Bulletin. The reason given: All members
of the military ban homosexuals.
Nearly all past and present military personnel have consistently indicated preference for a homosexual ban; the presence of homosexuals causes unlimited disturbances and distractions from duty.
The military is engaged in a desperate struggle around the world in our behalf: the eradication of terrorists who seek our destruction.
The outcome is still in doubt. All citizens should be doing everything possible to help the military prevent the unthinkable, including such matters as puny as Oregon National Guard ads. What is the OSB’s stance? Request denied. This is in stark contrast to the efforts and attitude of many individual bar members.
The Oregon National Guard says the OSB Bulletin ads are helpful in recruiting needed personnel. Bar president Cook says: "The bar supports our troops and their efforts." How?
Does the Board of Governors’ vote support our troops? What is more important, help in all matters large or small that may aid in eradication of terrorism, or to allow a relatively few homosexuals to display their unique sexual prowess on the disturbed military in the guise of (a) diversity policy?
Dwight L. Schwab
Policy Wouldn’t Be Gutted
I note in the Oregonian for August 21 an article
stating that the Oregon State Bar "rejects ads from
the Oregon National Guard due to the military’s controversial
policy on homosexuals." An advisory committee had
recommended allowing the Guard’s ad be printed in the bar Bulletin,
however the Board of Governors rejected this recommendation.
Bar president Nena Cook is quoted as saying: "I don’t
believe the board was willing to basically gut its diversity
policy to make an exception for the military." She
is further reported as saying this rejection should not
be interpreted as anti-military, but one could hardly
classify it as pro-military.
I fail to see how the acceptance of this ad could have any effect on our diversity policy and it would certainly not "gut" that policy.
Irvin D. Smith
Tail Wags the Dog
It is too bad that the Board of Governors rejected
the recommendation of the Policy and Governance Committee
concerning changing the policy to allow military recruitment
ads in the bar Bulletin. This is an example of the
tail wagging the dog. Like it or not, the policy of ‘don’t
ask, don’t tell" is accepted by the courts as the
law of the land.
What is the next step for the minority? Should the OSB disband the Military Assistance Panel of the Lawyer Referral Service program? Should I be nervous about my bar membership because I receive military retired pay? Is the Oregon State Bar president leading us or following a selfish and minority agenda? If this proposition were put to a vote of the entire general membership, I feel confident we would have a different policy.
William P. Haberlach