en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/806776 Comments by UGottaBKidding http://www.katu.com/news/local/116703564.html#IDComment130273626 It's all about where you live, because I've had snow on a daily basis for the last week, with the exception of one day. For the past week, my kids have been getting a kick out of the daily comments like, "Wow, your car is covered with snow" and "you're so lucky" when I drop them off at school. My elevation is considerably higher than that of the school and the town I live in. My only complaint is that Portland news stations rarely cover my region (15 minutes SW of Dallas in the coast range) unless, of course, the Portland area is not expecting snow and the Portland news stations are in need of some "news" to report. However, this past week Portland has been expecting snow and, as a result, the forecast has been rather barren as to what I can expect in my area, at my elevation. Out here in my neck of the woods, I am my own meteorologist and I'm not that bad! Thu, 24 Feb 2011 07:52:02 +0000 http://www.katu.com/news/local/116703564.html#IDComment130273626 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/18410#IDComment96699274 Cont.... Avera made the plea offer and Horner sentenced. The court couldn't have made factual findings to support the ORS 137.712 (d)(B) exception. From a legal standpoint, the defendants should never been sentenced to Robbery II, as a non-Measure 11 crime, but, they were. One wonders, how could this get by Horner? Horner for Avera? In my opinion, this case was fast-tracked to clear the docket: Coincidentally, sentencing was February 23, 2010 and, on February 26, 2010, the county was hit with a 20 million dollar lawsuit, and there's no doubt they saw that one coming. Fri, 3 Sep 2010 04:16:26 +0000 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/18410#IDComment96699274 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/18410#IDComment96699144 I've followed your concerns about Avera for Avera/Horner for Avera campaign. I feel you're on point, esp. as to Horner for Avera. Horner was the judge in the skateboard attack. In order for a defendant to qualify for a Measure 11 exception for Robbery II, the court must find: "ORS 137.712 (d)(B) That, if the defendant represented by words or conduct that the defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon, the representation did not reasonably put the victim in fear of imminent significant physical injury;" The exception clearly failed: a) one of the defendants said "KILL HIM," as they continuously beat the victim w/skateboards; b) skateboard qualifies as dangerous weapon; and, c) the victim was in fear of imminent significant physical injury--he told detectives & DA's Ofc during the investigation phase that he thought the defendants were going to kill him & during sentencing he turned to defendants' families and said their sons tried to kill him. Cont.... Fri, 3 Sep 2010 04:14:58 +0000 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/18410#IDComment96699144 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/18456#IDComment96691717 I understand your concern with having only two judges serving on the bench possibly interfering with the obligation of a speedy trial. However, I have always felt a level of concern with the idea of a speedy trial, though it is a right afforded the defendant. My concern is whether a speedy trial allows enough time for the DA's Office to gather all the evidence, relative to a case, in order to fully and properly represent the people. With that said, another concern of only having two judges on the docket would be are defendants fast tracked? Meaning, are defendants being offered deals involving lesser charges than that of which fits the crime, with the sole purpose of clearing the case load? Fri, 3 Sep 2010 03:02:26 +0000 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/18456#IDComment96691717 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/18410#IDComment95892318 Electing Sally Avera for Circuit Court Judge would be a mistake. She is soft on criminals and that is not what we need for Polk County. Ms. Avera makes promises to victims and tells them she is hard on crime but when push comes to shove, she lets criminals "skate." Her plea offer of Assault II to 3 skateboarders who clearly attempted to murder the victim is indicative of her inability to prosecute criminals properly. She promised the victim if the defendants didn't accept Assault I, their cases would go to trial as Attempted Murder. However, less than 2 hours after making that promise to the victim, she offered Assault II. She waited more than a week (after the defendants accepted the offer) to notify the victim of the lesser offer. The cases did not statutorily meet the exception requirement to allow the defendants to be prosecuted outside of Measure 11, however, the defendants were not sentenced under Measure 11 and Ms. Avera refuses to admit and correct the sentencing mistake. Police reports show all 3 defendants thought they had killed the victim and that 1 defendant had instructed the other 2 to"KILL HIM." Is Ms. Avera really the kind of person you want behind the bench? Mon, 30 Aug 2010 02:53:13 +0000 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/18410#IDComment95892318 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/18161#IDComment88820023 Oh my golly. I, for one, would never allow my child to go to the falls. It is not only dangerous, but a bad influence. Here are a few choices for those attending the falls: drinking, drugs, sex, the danger of breaking one's neck or damaging one's spinal cord, or drowning. However, I suppose if you don't value your child's life, these are great alternatives, as opposed to having to look after your child. I can't count the times I have seen children hanging outside the bar waiting for their parents so they can have some dinner. Oh, oh, I know, maybe if we obtain the falls, they will stop hanging out at the bar! Mon, 26 Jul 2010 03:37:29 +0000 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/18161#IDComment88820023 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/18035#IDComment84483238 Read this week's article "Family Wishes Impact Statement" & you decide. Review ORS 163 & compare the 1st 3 counts in the article. The case is very similar to Fagundes' & it seems Fagundes had prior DUIIs. Britt's prior cocaine delivery charges aren't repeat offenses in that they were not assoc w/driving under the influence. What I find interesting is Britt's 6 initial charges, 1 victim to Fagundes 4 initial charges and 3 victims. Seems DA is inconsistent. Maybe this is already a "send a message case" as a result of the Fagundes controversy! Stay tuned. Sat, 3 Jul 2010 04:30:04 +0000 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/18035#IDComment84483238 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/18035#IDComment83596664 Gazing into my crystal ball, Britt will plead out to equal to or less than Criminally Negligent Homicide and DUII and will serve approx. four years because the DA's Office will feel as if, after further investigation, they will not be able to prove the more serious charges the defendant was indicted on. Being only 24, the defendant also "deserves" the chance to turn his life around. Never mind that the victim is not afforded the same opportunity! But then again, the DA might just read this and decide it has to send a message to the unbelievers who've been following its shotty sentencing record. TOO MANY LUCKY DUCK DEFENDANTS IN POLK COUNTY! Thu, 1 Jul 2010 00:33:50 +0000 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/18035#IDComment83596664 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/18026#IDComment83591479 Butterfield stated, "We believed that criminally neglect homicide was something we could prove." The big difference between First Degree Manslaughter and Criminally Negligent Homicide seems to be whether or not the defendant had 3 prior DUII convictions or a prior conviction of either Assault 1, 2 or 3. It sure would have been nice if the article covered that angle. Thu, 1 Jul 2010 00:13:00 +0000 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/18026#IDComment83591479 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/17983#IDComment83502048 ...but were gonna need your addy. Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:59:26 +0000 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/17983#IDComment83502048 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/17983#IDComment81819169 Hi George. The cry babies are misinforming the public. There is south side access owned by the city. And yes, you are right about lawsuit. The prior owner is so lucky not to have been sued even though he could have been so many times over the years. Lucky for him, those that could have, didn't. Let's say you and me and FtheGov drive around Falls City and when we find a backyard we like, we camp out and have a barbeque. After all, private property out here is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. Thu, 24 Jun 2010 01:23:06 +0000 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/17983#IDComment81819169 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/17983#IDComment81817540 The 6/23 Editorial states, "Residents old and new alike take great pride in the falls and value public access to the natural feature more than almost anything. But during the past two years, public access has been limited after a private citizen, Judith Bent, took ownership of a highly-prized and popular piece of property near the falls and cut off access to the area." Again, "legal" public access is on the south side, always has been. Anyone could have purchased the private property on the north side and donated it to the city. BUT YOU DIDN'T. So cry me a river. Thu, 24 Jun 2010 01:11:08 +0000 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/17983#IDComment81817540 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/17983#IDComment81816258 My goodness Falls City, give it up! The property in question was privately owned before Ms. Bent purchased it. The sale was from one private party to another. Trespassing and illegal activities on the north side have been going on for YEARS! Your trespassing and disrespect of another person's private property got cancelled. End of story. Let us not forget how a small park a few miles down Black Rock got closed due to vandalism. The city owns the south side of the falls. Quit complaining and refocus your goal: force the city to make the south access more accessible. You have not lost the Falls, just your minds. Thu, 24 Jun 2010 01:00:23 +0000 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/17983#IDComment81816258 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/17932#IDComment80519020 Congratulations, Ms. Bent, on your win. It is my opinion that if the property in question was so important, then maybe the city of Falls City should have acquired the land when the town was established in the late 1800s. Instead, the people of Falls City have been using the land, abusing the land, and taking personal liberties for years and all the while, a private party (called owner) has been paying the city and county taxes. And let's not forget the illegal activities that have taken place on this "precious" land. The property has been looking rather atrocious for years, yet nobody cared about this property enough then. Why now? If the citizens of Falls City really loved the property in question, then why is it they did not take care of and beautify this ground they seem to call sacred when they had the chance? Could it be that it was because it was not your land to take care of, so why should you bother? Like I said, use, abuse, and take personal liberties. Not that it would have mattered (or maybe it would have to the seller), but it sure would have proven to this reader how important the falls really was to the people of Falls City. Too little, too late! Thu, 17 Jun 2010 02:52:32 +0000 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/17932#IDComment80519020 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/17197#IDComment61532645 A few years back, the Falls City School District began operating on a 4-day per week schedule, rather than the five days realized by all other districts. I heard funding was the issue that led to the educational cutbacks of the community. Maybe if funding would have made its way to the district, the district would not have sacrificed the education of an entire community of children. Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:35:30 +0000 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/17197#IDComment61532645 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/17122#IDComment58730240 bystander2, does your heart go out to the victim? Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:46:35 +0000 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/17122#IDComment58730240 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/17122#IDComment58730060 In checking the link out, I suggest you drop the /f... and copy the rest of the address. That way you can find out how lovely a woman this Karlie Falca aka Karlie Nelson is NOT. Thanks for the tip TBDallas. Right on! Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:44:50 +0000 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/17122#IDComment58730060 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/17122#IDComment58729434 Bystander1 is likely an older sister. Keeps harping on the drunk driver issue (just like an older sister does). Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:39:32 +0000 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/17122#IDComment58729434 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/17122#IDComment58729179 Collins was not court appointed. Rather, he was hired by the family. Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:36:53 +0000 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/17122#IDComment58729179 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/17122#IDComment58727989 PART FIVE: What this means is that even though all parties agree the injuries sustained were more extensive, they agreed to a lesser level of injuries in order to enter into a plea agreement outside of Measure 11 and Attempted Murder so that the defendants could have the incentive to rehabilitate and get out on early release. Judge Horner wholeheartedly refused to stipulate to the lesser level of the injuries sustained and asked his court assistant to make a note that he will not stipulate to the lesser level of the injuries. At one point, the issue became heated enough that the Judge threatened they could take their chances and go to trial and it was at this point the attorneys backed down from the issue. Like I stated earlier, you really should have been in court. There is so much more to tell. Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:25:31 +0000 http://www.itemizerobserver.com/archives/Story.aspx/17122#IDComment58727989