This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on October 15, 2007 4:18 PM. The previous post in this blog was Attention procrastinators. The next post in this blog is Earth friends. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Monday, October 15, 2007

The Neil legacy lives on

Here's an ugly one. But what's good for the sheriff should be good for the governor, I suppose.

Comments (11)


You're an attorney. If I come to you this year and say, "I have heard a rumor that X engaged in illegal congress with an underage girl in 1975." And X was a member of the Bar. Would you be required to report that? If the Statute of Limitations had run on the crime does it make any difference?

Just wondering.

Greg C

Wonder no more. Under current Oregon law, all lawyers must report to law enforcement any child abuse -- by anyone -- of which they become aware.

I think the real issue in Larsy's complaint may be alleged lying to the public about whether he had heard the rumor. The gov's on record as saying he never heard of it until after Neil's resignation from public life. Leonhard says that's a lie.

So the question becomes whether Gov TaxAndGougeMe (See I ocasionally listen to Liars Larson too)violated Bar ethical rules by failing to remember in 2004 whether or not he had heard about Neils trangressions in 1994.

Or in the alternative whether he violated the Bars ethical rules by lying to the press in 2004 about whether he had heard about Neils transgressions in 1994.

Should be interesting to see how the Bar deals with this. (And also whether in 1994 TK had an ethical duty to report suspected cases of child abuse that had happened 20 years earlier.)

Greg C

Does anyone remember. My best reccolection is that when WW asked the woman involved to verify the abuse she told them to go F themselves. In other words all the proof (and I admit it is voluminess I am not denying it happened) is second hand. In other words how much responsibility does someone have to report a third hand rumor about child abuse that occurred 20 years before when the now adult formerly abused person could have already taken action?

"In other words how much responsibility does someone have to report a third hand rumor about child abuse that occurred 20 years before when the now adult formerly abused person could have already taken action?"

OK, I'll bite. You should ignore any rumor and not check it out. This way anyone who was a molester 20 years has had the intervening time to correct his ways without any undue outside influence.

Of course, if anyone asks deny you heard such a thing because it would ruin the molester's life if they even investigated and your future career chances if you depended on this person for a political career.

I guess my issue is that I thought we should have a little higher standard for judges rather than tightly closing their eyes to any wrong by their buddies. It sets two standards, I think.

Neil and his buddies (yes, that include Saxton) really fail the smell test for any kind of integrity. SO they end up covering for each other.

Couple clips from ORS 419B, the Juvenile Dependency Code. Oregon lawyers are mandatory reporters (are you, Steve?) so this applies. As you can see, it all hinges on "reasonable cause to believe." Including the immunity part. I suppose Mr. Leonhard could shed some light on whether TK had reasonable cause back then. But of course the next question would be, if you knew so much Mr. Leonhard, why didn't YOU blow the whistle? And finally, was any of this mandatory reporter stuff the law in 1994?

419B.010 Duty of officials to report child abuse; exceptions; penalty. (1) Any public or private official having reasonable cause to believe that any child with whom the official comes in contact has suffered abuse or that any person with whom the official comes in contact has abused a child shall immediately report or cause a report to be made in the manner required in ORS 419B.015.....

419B.025 Immunity of person making report in good faith. Anyone participating in good faith in the making of a report of child abuse and who has reasonable grounds for the making thereof shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, that might otherwise be incurred or imposed with respect to the making or content of such report.

As I said, I think the real guts of the claim will likely be allegedly lying to the public about when he heard the rumor. Lawyers in Oregon can be disciplined for any form of dishonesty; lying in the media about a crime certainly seems within the scope of that rule.

Here's the reason that Lars filed his complaint with the Bar. It's from Duin's article on Kulongoski.

"If someone wrote us a letter, we certainly would have grounds to investigate if we thought there was potential misconduct," said Kateri Walsh, a bar spokeswoman.

I don't know for sure (because I usually can't stand listening to Sars Larson), but I bet he supports Bernie Giusto, who is one of the sleaziest people in public life in Oregon.

Ok does this mean Jack has a responsibility to report a serious misuse of government property in the State of Alabama in the 1970's. You know the property that a certain drunk all the time National Guard pilot wasted. I'll give you a hint his initials are GWB.

Jack if you do will you post a copy of your request for an investigation to the Alabama Attorney General on this site for all of us to see?

Greg C

"Oregon lawyers are mandatory reporters (are you, Steve?)"

If I had reason to believe someone was a pedophile, yes, I would feel a moral imperative to report it.

As far as reporting Bush, I think he should be held to the same standard. I really don't believe that if Bush got a free pass, that anyone else should because of that.

Unless of course you are Chris Smith getting a free pass . . .

Lars Larson has been trying to break this story since we first met him 20 some years ago at a water board meeting downtown.

Every single day Lars woke up and tried to break the Neil and The Girl story, only to go to bed on his dirty dinghy with nothing more than a headache and a lonely heart.

Think of it.

20 years... 5000 working days... 40,000 hours... of digging and searching and questioning... and Lars got... nada.

And he once called himself a serious journalist?

Nigel is one, not Lars. Not ever.

since we first met him 20 some years ago at a water board meeting

You were waterboarding people 20 years ago?

Clicky Web Analytics