THE ONLY Measure 114 related discussion thread

The state's position is that the judge has a restraining order on all sections of Measure 114, but the lawsuit was only challenging the 10 magazine limit. Which since the law is severable, was a really poor choice by the attorneys of the lawsuit. The state's position is the judge is overstepping his bounds by holding up sections of the law that were not even challenged. I'm surprised the Oregon supreme court didn't step in on that part of his restraining order, but they still may depending on how the hearing on the 23rd goes. The state is trying to argue that the judge can only review the 10 magazine limit portion of the bill because that is all the lawsuit was attacking. The state has a point; Measure 114 is severable, meaning if one portion is defeated all other sections still stand as law. Good on the Harney county judge for fighting the good fight, but he's eventually going to run out of steam. Somebody else needs to quickly enjoin this lawsuit and attack the other severable parts of Measure 114, and that would shut down the state's position on the 23rd.......as then the lawsuit would be attacking all severable portions of Measure 114.

That Kaemph Law lawsuit against OFF is interesting. Fee Agreement signed on November 21st and they were fired on December 8. So the contract was in place for only 17 days. The fee agreement letter promised that Kaemph Law would notify OFF before they did any work that exceeded the $60K retainer. Kaemph Law is claiming $126K+ in fees, $66K of which they billed on December 15th, a week after being fired. Based on the OFF email, OFF is stating that Kaemph Law billed them for work they allegedly did before the agreement was ever signed, and did not notify them in advance of that $66K extra work (thus violating the Fee Agreement). So as part of the evidentiary discovery phase, Kaemph Law will have to produce the advance notification documentation for that $66K of extra work if they hope to win the lawsuit. As well as all of their billing documentation for the judge to review, and there are strict rules and regulations regarding billing for law firms. Interesting that Kaemph Law opted to represent itself in the lawsuit, given attorney/client privileges rules that is a little odd.....

A judge is going to question why any work done prior to the fee agreement being signed didn't bill against the $60K retainer first instead of being included in the final bill a week after being fired. As well as if the work done prior to the fee agreement signed was known to be greater than $60K why was the retainer only set at $60K. Kaemph Law will have to show a copy of the actual Fee Agreement (wasn't included in the lawsuit paperwork) and that agreement has to have specific terms that show OFF agreed to pay for the specific work completed prior to the Fee Agreement being signed. So yeah, will be interesting to follow the evidentiary discovery phase to see who is telling the truth....

If it's true that "several months of work" was done before the Fee Agreement was signed, the retainer should have been set to an amount that would reflect that as part of full disclosure under attorney ethics rules.....

The Oregon Supreme Court simply decided not to intervene at this time, and denied the writ of mandamus that the Oregon Attorney General was trying to get them to do to force the law to take effect now without waiting for the court process to play out. Meaning for now we wait for the lower courts process to play out over time, with the implementation of measure 114 still on hold pending results of the litigation.

I didn't see it posted in this thread yet, but the Oregon State Police added documents in one of the federal lawsuits clarifying that the FBI is refusing to implement their part of Measure 114 regarding the background checks for permit applicants. As the FBI has determined that Measure 114 violates Pub. L 92-544. Measure 114 was relying on the fingerprint process of the FBI background checks to allow OSP to issue permits to purchase a gun. So OSP will have to rely on their regular background check process, meaning yet another part of Measure 114 was poorly written.