Although the arrest of Diane Downs had to wait for Gregory Foote’s promotion and transfer from Juvenile Court to the senior Criminal Court he refused to postpone the beginning so that Melvin Belli could take over as Defense. The father of the accused pregnant mother had some misgivings about the existing attorney James Jagger, (who was himself incidentally, married to a Lane County Circuit Court Judge). So the highly biased presiding Judge Foote kept together ‘The Trio Noir’.
1: Working under Lane County, D. A. Pat Horton (see page 7), Fred Hugi, desperately wanted victory in his first criminal trial. He not only got victory however, he also got the children of the woman he sent to prison by later adopting his only witness, Christie Downs (8 y/a at the shooting!) along with her brother, Daniel.
2: Judge Foote also had a ‘double input’ into the case of Diane Downs. He not only resided at the Juvenile court in which Diane lost custody of her children. He went on to resided at the senior court that found her guilty!
3: By strange coincidence, the trio noir’s last figure: James Jagger was married to Lauren Holland, herself an attorney and who dealt in ‘Family Advocacy Law’. Two years after trial Lauren Holland was appointed to the Circuit Court.
The Oregon Bar reports the following about Oregon Defense Attorney James Jagger: His Bar #70070; active member since 1970. There are 45 complaints in his file: 3 letters of admonition, 3 reprimands, 39 dismissals.
Oregon’s Lane Circuit Court’s ally - ignoring what any legal practitioners could reasonably regard as impartiality - to say nothing of what Codes of Ethics or Standards of Professional Responsibility for Attorneys as well Code of Judicial Conduct might require - was confirmed:
“In September 1991...Marion County Circuit Judge Duane R. Ertsgaard denied request for a new trial...saying she was adequately represented by lawyers in her trial and appeal” (published by Ore State Sheriffs’ Assn.)
February 9, 1999, The Oregonian: “US District Judge Ancer Haggerty dismissed several of the nine claims Downs raised for procedural reasons, including an argument that Downs was improperly denied the services of attorney Melvin Belli at the original trial...But that and other issues not raised in years of state appeals cold not be considered at the federal level unless Downs show a good reason for rising the question...”
Matthew 7 (18): A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a poor tree cannot bear good fruit. (19) And any tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and trown in the fire. (20) So then, you will know the fals prophets by what they do.
Maximum parole date was January 9, 2002. Still, it will be a long battle (at least two more appeals) before that issue is resolved.
Oregon Whore's Birth Pangs:
Oregon Courts have determined the law under which Diane was sentenced is illegal (in State vs. Warren).
The State of Oregon asked the Higher Court to reconsider that decision 2 1/2 months ago (Jan 05).
There should be no question that Higher Courts will agree with the lower court because the Highest Court already ordered the Oregon Supreme Court to reverse the illegal sentencing in State vs. Dilts. They did as they were ordered. It's not likely they want to hand down a decision that the U.S. Supreme Court will again order them to reverse. So all of Oregon knows the Supreme Court will affirm the Oregon Court of Appeals Warren decision.
Incredibly, the Oregon Supreme Court has decided to delay their opinion in Warren until the Oregon Court of Appeals hands down their opinion in State vs. Heilman. After Heilman is decided in exactly the same way as was Warren, the Oregon Supreme Court can affirm both of them.
Another example of Ore Lane County District Court’s judge Gregory Foote (and his partners) known to us readers from the astonnishing "Strawberry Festival" he held and dished right after order (see page 4).
Taken from Diane Downs writ :
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1
The Trial Court erred when it relied on the State’s Response to deny Defendant a new trial, when the State filed no response.
STANDARD ON REVIEW
Review is for errors of Law. Bedell v. Schiedler, 307 Or. 562 (1989).
PRESERVATION OF ERROR
Defendant made a Motion For New Trial. Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure (ORCP) 64 F says the opposing party shall have 10 days to file counter-declarations. In this case, Trial Court handed down its decision within 8 days, before the State could make a counter-declaration. Then Trial Court based its decision to deny a new trial on the State’s non-existent response. This was a legal error. This preserved the issue for review.
Defendant filed a Motion For New Trial on April 28, 2005. Whether or not she had a right to a new trial could only be determined by an examination of the facts. For one week, the only facts lying on the Judge’s Bench were contained in Defendant’s compelling Motion. In the absence of opposing argument, Trial Court would have to comply with State and Constitutional Law and order a new trial.
Defendant relied on City of Portland v. Carriage Inn, 296 Or. 191,673 P2d 531 (1983) to prove the 1984 Sentence ORDER was not a final JUDGMENT by the meaning of Oregon Law. She supported her claim with State v. Bonner, 307 Or. 598 (1989) to show the Oregon Courts do not recognize a Sentence Order to be a final Judgment if it contains the provision to conduct a restitution hearing at some future date.
Defendant then proved her right to a new trial with State v. Lloyd, 109 Or. App. 213, 818 P2d 982 (1991) which requires a new trial when a Bonner claim is discovered after the exhaustion of direct appeal.
This is not to say the State filed no Response at all. In fact a Response was mailed to Defendant three days AFTER the Court’s Decision was filed. The State can fool the eyes by back-dating their Response to support the Trial Court’s premature decision, but REASON defies the picture drawn by Lane County officials.
The State dated their Response for May 6, 2005, indicating it was prepared on the 6th.
The Trial Court’s Decision was filed by the Clerk at 11:30 AM on May 6, 2005. Given the fact Oregon Trial Judges are on the Bench from 9 AM to Noon, the Court would have had to sign the order before the day began, or during the 15-minute recess at 10 AM, in order for the decision to be filed by 11:30.
Logic suggests the Trial Court’s Decision was filed before the State’s Response was prepared, later that day. No doubt the State will argue that the date on its document is not telling of when it was filed. That’s true. So Defendant turns to the postage meter, stamped by the same Clerk who filed the State’s Response (APPENDIX 3). Attorneys can play fast and loose with their interpretation of events, but United States Postal meters don’t lie. The State’s Response was submitted three days AFTER the Trial Court’s Order to Deny New Trial was filed.
Furthermore, the Response did not address the fact that the Sentence Order is not a final Judgment (a claim that has never been tried by any other Appellate Court).
Unopposed, Defendant’s Motion should have been granted. It most certainly should not have been denied on the strength of the State’s response. Trial Court violated Defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment Right to Due Process.
In: Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Malcolm F. Marsh, District Judge, Presiding, Argued and Submitted July 10, 2007, Portland, Oregon
Page 4: ”Notably, Downs has not accepted responsibility for her crimes of conviction, and maintains to this day that the state authorities framed her.”
*framed: to contrive the evidence against (an innocent person) so that a verdict of guilty is assured
May I ask the Honorable Judge Marshall, that were you innocent of such a crime, would you plead guilty? I should hope not. Diane Downs is fully aware that if she accepted responsibility for the crime, the Board of Parole may well look upon her situation in a more positive light. With that in mind, does it not give you 'some' indication at least, that this woman will not submit to what is, in reality, institutional blackmail even though it may be of some benefit to her. Her denial of the crime establishes an integrity and determination not to be bullied into accepting a lie that has reigned for over twenty years.
“What kind of a legal system is this where we're going to design our rules to encourage guilty people to plead - or innocent people to plead guilty? It's crazy.” Justice Scalia
September 6, 2011. the Governor's office received your letter and supporting documents dated August 24, 2011 regarding your daughter Elizabeth Diane Downs. In that letter you requested that the Governor consider your plea that her conviction was a miscarriage of justice.
Your daughter has the right to request executive clemency from the Governor. Enclosed is an executive clemency packet. While you may prepare the application and provide the information. the Oregon statute requires your daughter personally sign the application and the clemency affidavit. In addition the clemency affidavit must be signed in front of a notary and copies of the application must be sent to the appropriate parties listed in the affidavit.
F. A. Lushenko
Prosecutor: Wrongful Conviction Is 'Nightmare' Aug. 29, 2007 http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1757915/)
(Don't make the innocent beg for justice, January 28, 2008 http://www.newsjournalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/opnOPN75012808.htm