Wednesday, February 01, 2012

Marion County Judge Rejects City Of Astoria's Appeal To Throw Out DUII Lawsuit


Judge Albin Norblad's Response, Above, To Astoria City Attorney, Blair Henningsgaard's Request To Dismiss Oregon's Lawsuit Against CofA.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

that judge is just like his grandfather, a goddamned drunk

Patrick McGee said...

Hence many's surprise at Norblad's quick decision, in light of his socalled local community ties, on finding the issue of the lawsuit valid, justifiable and justiciable and squashing Henningsgaard's call to dismiss.

Could it be he was doing what he was sworn to do as a Circuit Court Judge?

Anonymous said...

Not according to the people whose intention is to hurt Astoria, Willis and Blair.

Patrick McGee said...

Do you mean Willis and Blair harming Astoria or other people intent on harming not only Astoria but, Willis and Blair too?

Anonymous said...

Wait a minute when this judge (whose grandfather was a Congressman and great-uncle was a Governor - all from Astoria) was first appointed Willis was quoted in the paper praising Norblad up and down about how welcome such Astoria royalty would be, blah, blah.
Now that he ruled against the City he's a drunk? BTW his grandfather died 48 years ago so who the hell remembers whether he was a drunk? Judge Norblad did get a DUII but Willis got THREE, so what does that make the City? The judge got a 30-day suspension from office, Willis got nothing.
What about letting Astoria voters decide where DUIIs should be tried?

Anonymous said...

No, no, no. Josh Marquis had decided where DUIIs must be tried and that is that. God forbid anyone local disagreeing with his decision. Remember what happened to other people who disagreed? Like the County Commission?
Nope, the end result is that Josh will get his way, as always.
And, no one should bring up the sweetheard deal he recently gave the murderer either. That's a lot different than a DUII case.

Patrick McGee said...

The "Murderer"? Care to elaborate?

By the way, here's ORS 8.660

Attending court and prosecuting offenses

(1) The district attorney shall attend the terms of all courts having jurisdiction of public offenses within the district attorney’s county, and, except as otherwise provided in this section, conduct, on behalf of the state, all prosecutions for such offenses therein.

(2) A district attorney shall not conduct prosecutions under this section when:

(a) A city attorney is prosecuting a violation under ORS chapter 153; or

(b) The district attorney is prohibited from appearing in a violation proceeding under the provisions of ORS 153.076 (Conduct of trial). [Amended by 1975 c.451 §170; 1981 c.626 §1; 1981 c.692 §6a; 1999 c.1051 §116]

I'll post ORS 153.076 if you have difficulty in using Google.

the murderer said...

Just shut up.

Anonymous said...

No, Patrick, I can actually use a computer and read the law.
Once again, you are starting at the beginning. So, what does "attend" mean?
As far as the murder is concerned, you don't read the Daily Astorian, at least for the last week? The article says it all.
Umm.

Patrick McGee said...

ORS 153.076(See Section 6)

Conduct of trial

(1) Violation proceedings shall be tried to the court sitting without jury. The trial in a violation proceeding may not be scheduled fewer than seven days after the date that the citation is issued unless the defendant waives the seven-day period.

(2) The state, municipality or political subdivision shall have the burden of proving the charged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

(3) The pretrial discovery rules in ORS 135.805 (Applicability) to 135.873 (Protective orders) apply in violation proceedings.

(4) The defendant may not be required to be a witness in the trial of any violation.

(5) Defense counsel shall not be provided at public expense in any proceeding in which only violations are charged.

(6) A district attorney or city attorney may aid in preparing evidence and obtaining witnesses but, except upon good cause shown to the court, shall not appear in violation proceedings unless counsel for the defendant appears. The court shall ensure that the district attorney or city attorney is given timely notice if defense counsel is to appear at trial. [1999 c.1051 §21]

Patrick McGee said...

Are you referring to the Ian Erickson case and the "Plea Bargain" negotiated by defense attorney Steve Roman with the D.A.'s office?