Who do you think is telling the truth here ? A or B.

I'm with the vast majority of readers here, who believe A.

It's called " A Cover-up", sometimes called a Dixie Lullaby.

Remember the wisdom of George Costanza: It's not a lie if you sincerely believe it's true.

There is at least one category of adversarial proceeding where the Oregon Supreme Court reviews the evidence de novo?

To whom would you seek review of OSB inaction? Not the OSB General Counsel, Mr. Mullmann, for it is the Board of Governors of the bar and not the General Counsel that hears matters pertaining to disciplinary action.

Don't let the apparent opportunity for yet more review, as a transparent stalling device to later assert your failure to exhaust your administrative remedies, stop you from bringing an immediate "original proceeding." View the court here just the same as a judge would a jury that fails to reach a verdict . . . send them back to the jury room.

Is Mr. Mullmann asserting the our Supreme Court, not a lay jury, might get confused about the proper weight to give to a polygraph test? That is one lame argument.

Remember the wisdom of George Costanza: It's not a lie if you sincerely believe it's true.

George Costanza? I thought that was George Bush.

My dislike for the propagandist who brought this complaint just about equals the idiocy of this decision. Coin flip.

This is Oregon State Bar speak for, "Hey, this happened a long time ago, so let's just forget about it."

Kind of like the "investigation" they did into the allegation that David Wu raped a fellow Stanford University student...actually, now that I recall, there *was* no investigation into that; they claimed that they couldn't go back and look at his bar application regarding issues of moral turpitude because...well, just because they didn't want to.

This is simply proof that Ted Kulongoski has more friends in the right places than Bernie Giusto.

Well, if I was on the jury... I gotta say B is likely lying. That conclusion is based on the known lies B has been known to tell. Here is one of many examples:

It was B that nearly quoted Claude Raines' Casablanca character, CPT Renault when he said, "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

In B's case, "I'm shocked, shocked to find out the DMV is handing out drivers licenses without proper ID".

Lie to me once, I'll never believe you about anything again... as many serving long prison terms will agree.

Methinks Mullman is a political animal-judging from this and other cases he has decided. It seems to me that the idea of professional discipline comforts members of the public,but in reality never really works; in fact, it is used to support those in power and sometimes to attack whistle blowers.

Recently, I came across a case against the Oregon medical disciplinary board where the Oregon Court of Appeals did some grandstanding about the petitioner not "respecting the authority of the board"; I thought back to law school when I wrote a paper on the Timothy Patrick case; in the 1980s, Patrick won a treble damages Restraint of Trade case against those charmers-a case where there were egregious facts supporting the finding that a bunch of good ole boys ran a superior physician out of town (Astoria). To me, the fact that we aren't having a frank and honest discussion about the potential (and fact of) abuse by such boards does not bode well for the state of the professions in this state.

A. The Oregonian is still covering up.
B. Bernie still may talk.

selective memory is a handy trait....

It's just like the Naked Gun: Frank! Drebin! "You're both right."

In other news, I can't seem to get adblock to work on that gigantic forehead at the top of my screen.

One things for sure.
If Bearnie ever comes clean and sings he'll have far more fans than he has today.

So how about it Bernie?

Why not finally dump a big pile of honesty on this?
You'll be enjoying a comfortable retirement with many of your fellow Oregonians in appreciation for your honorable exit.

So the Bar cannot discern whether misconduct resulted based upon evidence provided by the complainant and countered by the accused. This seems an ideal situation to conduct an investigation and hear from "C","D", "E" and "F"?

If Ted Kulongoski is innocent of the allegations then, as the Governor of our state and by most accounts an honorable man, how can he be satisfied to hide behind the supreme's legal twaddle and let this thing dangle for posterity?

Seems to me that if he is sincerely interested in putting an end to the public speculation there is no more direct way to do it than by submitting to the same polygraph exam as his accuser.
Or is his loyalty more to the Goldschmidt machine than to the people of Oregon?

C'mon Ted, where lies your Semper Fi?

One more justification for my acceptance of the principle that one should never trust an organization that would have you as a member. Once again, I plugged my nose and wrote my check for bar dues this year: "Ante up." The idea that OSB can or will police its own is ludricrous. And anyone who expects they will do so is simply silly.

I don't think it's too complicated. If Ted the K is a liar, then it was Leonhardt's or Lars' burden to to show the guv is/was lying. It seems like most the folks on this thread think Ted's lying, which is all fine and dandy for shooting the sh** around the campfire but based on all the known facts there isn't enough for Bar the proceed.

I have a bit of a bias, I'm a criminal defense attorney and believe that the burden of proof is on the accuser. I don't know Leonhardt and I think he believes he is accurately relaying his 15 year old conversation with Kulongski.

"My dislike for the propagandist"

I understand the dislike for Lars, but I never see anyone with a PERS account challenging Neil and his hey-boys. I mean an outsiderf had to chase Bernie down on behalf of some cops.

Stan,

The Oregon Supreme Court has stressed that the burden to prove moral fitness is on an applicant. Distinguish that!

-- Signed Jester

"The idea that OSB can or will police its own is ludricrous. And anyone who expects they will do so is simply silly." Agreed. So why do we keep pretending it's possible?

He said, he said. It couldn't have turned out any other way, absent corrboration. I predicted that right here.

Who complaining here about this result voted for Ted over Mannix? Over Saxton?

Jester when an attorney is applying for admission to the Oregon bar it's his burden to show that he is " a person of good moral character and fit to practice." (State v. Benarth SC44863 1998) Kulo has been an Oregon attorney since the early 70s ergo he is not an applicant so it's not his burden.

In State v. Rhodes a 2000 Oregon Supreme Court case the court says the bar has the burden in establishing misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. It's an important point because if the bar's investigator finds both parties credible he's going to have a hell of a time meeting that standard.

I think what a lot of people are dissatisfied with is the bar's unwillingness to dig into this more deeply. If this complaint were against Kevin Mannix or Ed Fadeley, would the bar let it go so readily?

In other news, I can't seem to get adblock to work on that gigantic forehead at the top of my screen.

Priceless.

BTW, whose forehead IS that? John Gotti?

Come on... can't you tell?

Jack,

Regarding your comments re Mannix and Fadeley, that is exactly what I was thinking when you said that they were not going after their Dem friends. I mean, come on...don't they get conflicting reports of the wrongdoing in EVERY bar investigation where the accused says, "I didn't do it" and the accusers say, "Yes you did"? To use this logic, every time the accused can get two people to tell a conflicting story, we just let him or her go uninvestigated.

In other news, I can't seem to get adblock to work on that gigantic forehead at the top of my screen.

That's no forehead, that's a "fivehead". His, I think.