Judge Nye (an Obama and Trump nominee) didn't allow the Alphabet Veto to color his analysis, and he may have correctly uncovered an underhanded method to prevent "literal Hitlers" from becoming licensed advocates for the unbeknighted.
"Finally, Defendants argue there is no harm because they view the no-contact orders as non-punitive. Again, the Court disagrees. Plaintiff Perlot recently applied to sit for the State of Oregon bar exam. Dkt. 19-1, at 2. The application requires applicants to disclose any 'no contact order[s]' they have received and warns that '[l]ack of complete candor' could lead to 'denial of admission to the bar.' Id. Because the no-contact orders in this case still apply to graduated students, Perlot had to explain the no-contact order as part of his application. The Oregon Bar investigation is ongoing. Defendants’ subjective view of the no-contact orders does not alter the punitive nature of an investigation by a state's professional licensing board."
My initial take after a very brief review:
1. Who is "co-conspirator 1?"
2. This may be the weakest criminal complaint I've ever seen for something that has received a lot of attention.
3. The Court had to surmise quite a bit to find probable cause on the allegations contained in the Statement of Probable Cause, with the possible exception of the theft related charge.
I anticipate an amended complaint is coming soon.
Attached is the Verified Complaint brought by the Kappa Kappa Gamma Sorority Chapter at the University of Wyoming.|
They drew the only judge, of three, appointed by a Republican.
The Michigan Court of Appeals released a decision today that eliminated foreseeability as an element to establish proximate cause in criminal cases. In allowing the involuntary manslaughter charges against Defendants James Crumbley and Jennifer Crumbley to proceed to trial, the Court determined that, as a matter of law, there was a significant relationship between the Defendants' conduct and the mass shooting perpetrated by their son. The Court wrote, as to Proximate Cause:
"In this circumstance, a reasonable juror could conclude that defendants’ “conduct ‘increase[d] the foreseeable risk of a particular harm occurring through . . . a second actor,” State v Pesquiera, 235 Ariz 470, 477; 333 P3d 797 (App, 2014) (citations omitted), and that what EC did at Oxford High School that day was foreseeable."
However. as is an all-too-common clever lawyer trick, the Court omitted a relevant portion of the Arizona case they cited. That paragraph, in full, reads:
"¶ 23 A defendant's actions ...
