Blog:Main/Sample Encouraging Demurrer - Revision history

Admin1: Text replace - "| Ryan }}" to "| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}"

2013-08-09T19:07:04Z

Text replace - "| Ryan }}" to "| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}"

Maintenance script: Importing text file

2012-12-21T02:05:12Z

Importing text file

Maintenance script: Importing text file

2012-12-21T00:25:54Z

Importing text file

New page

You may recall previous posts on the charge of Encouraging Child Sexual Abuse that discussed the legal absurdity that one could go to prison for having naked photographs of someone whom it was perfectly legal to have intercourse with. See [/content/sex-yes-photos-no-why-%22encouraging%22-violates-oregon-constitution Sex, Yes; Photos, No].

If you have an Encouraging case, and you want to file a motion that addresses this absurdity head on, see [[Ecsa_Demurrer1.doc|this demurrer]].

The demurrer is not an exhaustive analysis. It is simple and straight-forward and should be more than enough to preserve the issue under the Oregon Constitution. You may also recall that the Oregon Supreme Court previously granted review of the main issue raised in this demurrer, in [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S057701.htm ''State v. Ritchie''], but it threw out the defendant's convictions on other grounds and therefore never reached this issue.
{{wl-publish: 2011-09-11 21:00:00 -0700 | Ryan }}

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:07, August 9, 2013
Line 4:		Line 4:

	The demurrer is not an exhaustive analysis. It is simple and straight-forward and should be more than enough to preserve the issue under the Oregon Constitution. You may also recall that the Oregon Supreme Court previously granted review of the main issue raised in this demurrer, in [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S057701.htm ''State v. Ritchie''], but it threw out the defendant's convictions on other grounds and therefore never reached this issue.		The demurrer is not an exhaustive analysis. It is simple and straight-forward and should be more than enough to preserve the issue under the Oregon Constitution. You may also recall that the Oregon Supreme Court previously granted review of the main issue raised in this demurrer, in [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S057701.htm ''State v. Ritchie''], but it threw out the defendant's convictions on other grounds and therefore never reached this issue.
−	{{wl-publish: 2011-09-11 21:00:00 -0700 \| Ryan }}	+	{{wl-publish: 2011-09-11 21:00:00 -0700 \| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 You may recall previous posts on the charge of Encouraging Child Sexual Abuse that discussed the legal absurdity that one could go to prison for having naked photographs of someone whom it was perfectly legal to have intercourse with. See [/content/sex-yes-photos-no-why-%22encouraging%22-violates-oregon-constitution Sex, Yes; Photos, No].
-If you have an Encouraging case, and you want to file a motion that addresses this absurdity head on, see [[Ecsa_Demurrer1.doc|this demurrer]].
+If you have an Encouraging case, and you want to file a motion that addresses this absurdity head on, see [[http://libraryofdefense.org/sites/default/files/ecsa-demurrer1.doc this demurrer]].
 The demurrer is not an exhaustive analysis. It is simple and straight-forward and should be more than enough to preserve the issue under the Oregon Constitution. You may also recall that the Oregon Supreme Court previously granted review of the main issue raised in this demurrer, in [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S057701.htm ''State v. Ritchie''], but it threw out the defendant's convictions on other grounds and therefore never reached this issue.
 {{wl-publish: 2011-09-11 21:00:00 -0700 | Ryan }}