Ex claims being poor to the court but on Facebook timeline talks about all her travels to Hawaii, Arizona, Montana - all w/in a few months time. It'd seem this would help my case if we go to trial (she seems to be aiming that direction. Is this so...
In a theoretical sense, destruction of evidence is prohibited by law. In a practical sense, you can take screen captures of these posts, or print paper copies, if they're still up.
I strongly advise you to at least consult with your own attorney in private before attempting this on your own. Representing yourself in court is like performing surgery on yourself, with no medical training or tools. It's legal, but you're likely to hurt yourself. If this is a priority for you, invest some resources to getting some help.See question
if a 14yr old girl and a 16yr old guy have sexual relations, but he turned 17 while she was still 14 is it illegal? the romeo and juliet says 3 years. after 3 years of dating and 8 mos of being broken up they are threatening him for satutory rape.
The "Romeo and Juliet" law you refer to is an affirmative defense that certain people have to charges of sex crimes based upon the age of the victim. It works like this:
Normally, it is against the law in Oregon to have sex with anyone who is under age 18. The reason is that it is against the law to have sex with someone without their consent, and we presume that people who are under age 18 are unable to give effective consent. 'Sex.' in this context, by the way, refers to all sexual contact, not just intercourse. Exactly what crime this is, depends on the age of the parties and the type of sexual contact; but it can be quite serious. The law applies to everyone, regardless of gender.
However, there is a limited exception to the age rule in Oregon: as long as both partners are over age 15, and they are less than three years different in age, then neither is presumed unable to consent solely by virtue of age. The 18-year-old would have an 'affirmative defense' to any criminal charge based solely on the 16-year-old's age. They could still in theory be charged, but they'd have a defense.
This defense would not work for a partner who was under age 15. A 14-year-old cannot legally consent to sexual contact.
For whatever it's worth, you should be aware that no one can meaningfully "threaten" a criminal charge except the police. There is no such thing as "pressing charges." This is a common misconception. Only the District Attorney can charge someone with a crime by bringing a criminal case before the court. Private persons, including victims of crimes, can report crimes to the police and can cooperate with the DA in their case (which is usually what we mean when we talk of "pressing charges," since the police and DA know that the case can't be won if the victim doesn't show up to testify), but that's all they can do. It's not clear who "they" are in this instance; but unless they are the police, all they can do is report an alleged crime, nothing more.
That said, sexual abuse charges are quite serious, especially against minors. There is no crime today with a greater social stigma attached than pedophilia. The mere mention of it can ruin lives. I know that this is not the sort of advice that anyone ever takes, but this 17-year-old should still cease any contact with the 14-year-old, and consult with an attorney in private, to be safe.See question
I filed for custody back in April of 2015 and waited the 30 days, his father still did not respond. Unfortunately I decided to try to work on co-parenting outside of the court and didn't realize that after 91 days the Petition would possibly be di...
Most likely your case will have been dismissed for want of prosecution, after so long a delay. But this doesn't mean that you have no ability to do anything; you'll just need to re-file and have your co-parent served again.See question
My daughter chose to live with me full time a year and a half ago. She is now 16 and scheduled to graduate from high school this year. Her father is threatening to take her back because she has missed school due to illness. There was no agreement ...
It's not clear from your description whether there is any current judgment of custody and parenting time for this child. (You said "there was no agreement between us," but I don't know if that means that you had no agreement that she would stay with you, or what.) If you have such a judgment, you can file a motion to modify it, to keep her with you. If you don't have one, then you urgently need one, and you need to file a petition for custody.
In either case, when you file, you can ask the Court for an order that "fixes" the child's schedule as it has been for the past 3 months, which is either called a Temporary Protective Order of Restraint (or 'TPOR') if you have no current judgment, or a Status Quo order if you do. Its actually easier to get a TPOR than a status quo order: if you're just filing your petition for the first time, you can ask the Court to issue a TPOR at that time without giving the other parent any advance notice. If you already have a judgment and are seeking a status quo order, you have to give the other parent three days' advance notice of your intent to seek the order, and they can come and object. In either case, they can also seek review of the order to question whether the 'status quo' you described really was what the child was doing for the past three months; each parent can also ask the Court for a temporary order that supersedes it. But it buys you time, so the other parent can't just take the child back whenever he wants - which, without such an order, he probably could do.
The other piece of good news is that once a child is 16, courts tend to defer to their wishes pretty heavily, and are unlikely to try to enforce parenting time over their objections. Your daughter can ask the Court to appoint an attorney to represent her, if you file a petition or motion. Actually, you and her father can do that too; but if she makes the request, the Court is legally required to honor it. She can make the request by writing a letter to the judge hearing the case (or the presiding judge of the court, if none has been assigned to the case), citing the case name and number and asking for an attorney. Note that she can't choose what attorney will represent her - each county court maintains its own list of attorneys who are available for this. Note also that these attorneys will not necessarily work for free - the Court will typically order that the parents split their fees in equal measure (or perhaps in proportion to their incomes, if those are wildly different). It's important to pay their fees promptly - while attorneys for children aren't supposed to base their recommendations on whether a parent has paid them or not, it pays to stay on their good side. Their counsel is highly valued by the court, and they generally get to dictate what happens in a case, especially if representing an older child. A children's attorney cannot also represent you - you should consult with your own attorney in private if you are involved in a custody case.See question
does your petition to the Oregon supreme court for review need to be a brief?
One can only petition the Oregon Supreme Court for review in a couple of ways. The most common way is an appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals. To appeal such a decision, you must file a notice of appeal; if the case is accepted, the Supreme Court will give you a due date for your appellate brief. The deadlines and other formatting and procedural rules must be strictly followed.
One can also petition the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, to directly request review of a trial court's decision. These can only be requested when normal appellate review is inadequate, generally due to discovery issues or other factors that would irrevocably affect the course of a trial. The Supreme Court grants between zero and two requests for mandamus a year, on average, I'd guess. The request for mandamus lies in a petition for a writ, with a memorandum of law.
Appellants have a right to a review of a trial court's decisions by the Court of Appeals. However, you don't have a right to review of those decisions by the Supreme Court. The Oregon Supreme Court, like most supreme courts, hears only a small fraction of the petitions for review that are brought before it. If you want to appeal an appellate court's decision, you should consult in private with an attorney who specializes in appellate work. This is not something it's contemplated people do by themselves.See question
We are filling out Parenting Time Enforcement paperwork pro se, second time in 2 years. We want to ask for child support to be a set, reasonable amount for a set period so that the withheld parenting time ceases to be a motivating factor for co-pa...
There are two different things going on here: Parenting time enforcement can be managed by filing a motion under ORS 107.434. This is a separate proceeding from a modification of child support under ORS 107.431. You can file two motions and ask that the Court hear them simultaneously, in the interests of efficiency, depending on whether your local court's procedures allow for it. But they're separate proceedings requiring separate pleadings.
A DHS report has no relevance to child support determinations under ORS 107.431; but it could be relevant to parenting time enforcement. For what it's worth, I would never suggest you say someone "filed a false report." Accusing people of lying always makes one come off as paranoid and hysterical. What you say, rather, is that a report was filed (you don't know by who; in theory, these reports are anonymous, even if you think you can figure it out), but no abuse was found and the case was closed. You let the Court make the inference that the other parent acted inappropriately in filing it - that's much more effective.
Beyond that, I'm afraid that it's not possible for us to give detailed advice on how to fill out a form, based only on a few lines on this site. (Please see: https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/five-tips-for-how-to-ask-for-legal-advice-on-avvocom .) I know it's not what you want to hear, but I would urge you to consult with an attorney in private if you're taking legal action. Representing yourself in court is like performing surgery on yourself, with no medical training or tools: it's legal, but you're likely to hurt yourself. Even a brief in-person consultation with an attorney will be more informative than whatever we can do based only on a few sentences online.See question
I am being falsely accused of attempted theft. I had asked my brother if i could use his shower because my pipes were frozen and he said ok. So my brother and his girlfriend rent a studio apartment and she was in the bathroom doing her make up an...
Defamation of character occurs when a person or entity publishes an untrue statement about another person to a third party, that causes the person a cognizable (that is, measurable and material) harm. 'Slander' is spoken defamation; 'libel' is written. Libel is generally taken a bit more seriously than slander, due to the lasting nature of the printed word.
Most of the time, a successful defamation case requires proving a cognizable harm in a financially measurable way. For example, an untrue statement that caused someone to lose out on a job or contract, if that loss could be proved, could give rise to a defamation claim. Some kinds of statements are 'defamatory per se.' These are presumed to cause harm, without a specific measured proof required. These include: impugning someone's integrity in their profession or business practices; accusing someone of a crime of moral turpitude; and (traditionally) impugning a woman's chastity. (That sexist rule is a relic from the common law that is probably no longer enforceable.) Even in cases of defamation per se, some kind of harm must still be proved for a court to award any real recovery. It's not clear to me that this qualifies: certainly stealing $100 would be a crime, but would it be a "crime of moral turpitude"? The rule is usually reserved for really serious, unsettling crimes.
A statement's being true is an absolute defense to any defamation claim; so is the statement's being mere personal opinion. (So we can't sue people for calling us names.) The burden of proof is on the plaintiff (the person doing the suing) to prove that the statement is false, and that it has caused harm.
Defamation is a tort - that is, a civil cause of action. It is not a crime. That means that you do not need the police's assistance to prosecute a defamation case, and they will not help you. It also means that if you win, the court can award you 'damages' - an order that the person who defamed you pay you money to compensate you for whatever their wrongful act may have caused you. A person cannot be jailed or otherwise punished by the State for defamation, aside from the money award to make the plaintiff whole again.
And therein lies the rub: In most tort cases, your lawyer is paid on a contingent fee agreement - they get a portion (usually about 30%) of your winnings, and only get paid if you win. A lawyer who thinks you have a good case may advance the costs of litigation for you, if you promise to pay them back (ethics rules prohibit attorneys from advancing costs without an expectation of reimbursement). They can afford to do this if they have reason to believe that they'll win some money for you and for themselves. Lawsuits, you see, are extremely expensive. There are filing fees, costs for discovery, depositions, expert witnesses (sometimes), and so on. Btu this is all only viable if the defendant - the person you're suing - has the ability to actually pay. A lawsuit is often only a workable solution to a problem if there is a "deep-pocket defendant" at the other end, such as a large corporation or an insurance company. If your defendant is just a private person, then even if you sue and win, you won't necessarily be able to recover much in terms of money. You may get the moral victory, but that's it, and you'll have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to get it. The fact is, lawsuits are not a practical way to settle interpersonal disputes like this. You'll have to tell your family and friends your side of the story; the ones you're close to will believe you.See question
I have herpes and the people that I think could have given it to me to me all say they don't have it but obviously it came from someone. Is there a way to find out who gave it to me? Is it illegal for someone to pass it on without telling you?
In theory, you could sue all of them on a personal injury theory, and ask the court to order the test. But I have never heard of anyone doing this successfully.
Giving someone an STD unintentionally and unknowingly is not a crime. There have been successful personal injury suits against people for transmitting STDs, but these generally have to be fairly serious diseases (if not outright uncurable and fatal, like HIV) to merit any particular recovery. In any lawsuit, you can only win an award for the actual damage that you suffered. In most personal injury cases, this is quantified in cognizable measures like the cost of your medical care, the loss of work time from an injury, and so on, perhaps with a little "pain and suffering" damages thrown in. ("Pain and suffering" damages are generally not awarded if no physical injury is suffered, which is why we can't sue people for every personally difficult experience in life.)
The fact is, herpes is extremely common. Something like 50% of adults have it, often asymptomatically - which means that you could have contracted it from anyone you've ever had sexual or other intimate contact with, and may not have known it for years. Most people never even know they have it, and if properly managed, it need not trouble you. For this reason, I suspect that suing people over it is not going to be worthwhile. Talk to your doctor if you have specific concerns.See question
My Divorce Attorney, was sneaking around all the time, and before the proceedings i had fired him, and he had taken a pistol for trade on attorney fees. Then I tried for months to get my files back and several documents were missing.I had made num...
Your account of events is a bit confusing and clearly missing a lot of information (please see this Guide: https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/five-tips-for-how-to-ask-for-legal-advice-on-avvocom ). But it is certainly true that an attorney is obligated to keep your confidences and to provide you with your files upon request. If an attorney has violated these rules, you can make a complaint to the Oregon State Bar's Client Assistance Office (online at http://www.osbar.org/public/legalinfo/1174.htm ). Bear in mind that any information you put in the complaint is not confidential - your attorney will be given a copy of the complaint, so they can be aware of the allegations against them.See question
I got a text saying my number was on a list for follow up with law enforcement.
Law enforcement agencies do not communicate with potential defendants by sending them text messages. They communicate with defendants by arresting them.
It sounds like you are either being threatened, or made a target of some scam. I would not reply to that message or any other messages from its sender without consulting with an attorney first. If you are concerned that you may be suspected of committing a crime, this is what you must do:
Consult in private with a criminal defense attorney immediately. You must not discuss this with anyone else until you do. That includes discussing it on the internet, and it especially includes talking to the police. DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE. If they try to talk to you, you must say "I'm sorry, but I don't want to answer any questions or consent to any searches, and I'd like to speak to a lawyer, please." Or, if you want to be technical, say "I'm invoking my right to remain silent and my right to counsel." Say that, ONLY that, then STOP TALKING. Do not try to persuade them of how innocent you are. Do not argue with them. Do not play their games. Anything you say, as the saying goes, can be used against you. So DON'T SAY ANYTHING.
Talking to the police without your own lawyer present can never, ever help you. The police are allowed to lie to you and trick you to get you to make self-incriminating statements. They can misrepresent what evidence they have. They can threaten to arrest you if you don't talk - let them. Talking will just get you arrested anyway. Or they will say, look, I'm sure this is all a misunderstanding, why don't you tell me your side of it - and then you'll say something they can use against you, and lose any chance of a defense. Do not fall for it. Do not talk to the police. Ask for a lawyer. Stop talking. Have I made myself clear?
Why do you need a lawyer? Only a lawyer can hold the police accountable for statements they may make to you about what evidence they have, or don't have. If you say one thing about a conversation, and a police officer says another, who do you think the court is going to believe? The police officer who's been on the force for ten years, or someone who's accused of being a criminal? People always believe officers above ordinary citizens (even though officers lie fairly commonly), if only because officers tend to be more coherent and articulate in their presentation. Only a lawyer can be sure of getting access to evidence the police hold that might help you. And only a lawyer can tell you what it's safe to say, and when you need to keep your mouth shut (answer: most of the time; but it's impossible to give specifics without being there).
You have the right to be appointed a lawyer, at taxpayer expense, if you're charged with a crime. If the case hasn't gotten there yet, you should still talk to an attorney in private, in order to be ready.See question